Impact and assessment of training models in interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound (IEUS) has gained significant popularity in recent years because of its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. The proper training of endoscopists is critical to ensure safe and effective procedures. This review study aims to assess the impact of different training models on the competence of trainees performing IEUS. Eight studies that evaluated simulators for IEUS were identified in the medical literature. Various training models have been used, including the EASIE-R, Mumbai EUS, EUS Magic Box, EndoSim, Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy model, and an ex vivo porcine model (HiFi SAM). The trainees underwent traditional didactic lectures, hands-on training using simulators, and direct supervision by experienced endoscopists. The effectiveness of these models has been evaluated based on objective and subjective parameters such as technical proficiency, operative time, diagnostic success, and participant feedback. As expected, the majority of skills were improved after the training sessions concluded, although the risk of bias is high in the absence of external validation. It is difficult to determine the ideal simulator among the existing ones because of the wide variation between them in terms of costs, reusability, design, fidelity of anatomical structures and feedback, and types of procedures performed. There is a need for a standardized approach for the evaluation of IEUS simulators and the ways skills are acquired by trainees, as well as a clearer definition of the key personal attributes necessary for developing a physician into a skilled endoscopist capable of performing basic and advanced therapeutic EUS interventions.

Sex differences impact ergonomic endoscopic training for gastroenterology fellows.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic-related injuries (ERIs) for gastroenterologists are common and can impact longevity of an endoscopic career. This study examines sex differences in the prevalence of ERIs and ergonomic training during gastroenterology fellowship. METHODS: A 56-item anonymous survey was sent to 709 general and advanced endoscopy gastroenterology fellows at 73 U.S. training programs between May and June 2022. Demographic information was collected along with questions related to endoscopic environment, ergonomic instruction, technique, equipment availability, and ergonomic knowledge. Responses of female and male gastroenterology fellows were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Of the 236 respondents (response rate, 33.9%), 113 (44.5%) were women and 123 (52.1%) were men. Female fellows reported on average smaller hand sizes and shorter heights. More female fellows reported endoscopic equipment was not ergonomically optimized for their use. Additionally, more female fellows voiced preference for same-gender teachers and access to dial extenders and well-fitting lead aprons. High rates of postendoscopy pain were reported by both sexes, with significantly more women experiencing neck and shoulder pain. Trainees of both sexes demonstrated poor ergonomic awareness with an average score of 68% on a 5-point knowledge-based assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Physical differences exist between male and female trainees, and current endoscopic equipment may not be optimized for smaller hand sizes. This study highlights the urgent need for formal ergonomic training for trainees and trainers with consideration of stature and hand size to enhance safety, comfort, and equity in the training and practice of endoscopy.

Accuracy of self-assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment is necessary to ensure both attainment and maintenance of competency in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and this can be accomplished through self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of self-assessment among GI endoscopists. METHODS: This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that investigated self-assessment of endoscopic competency. We performed a systematic search of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Wiley Cochrane CENTRAL, and ProQuest Education Resources Information Center. We included studies if they were primary investigations of self-assessment accuracy in GI endoscopy that used statistical analyses to determine accuracy. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies using a limits of agreement (LoA) approach to meta-analysis of Bland-Altman studies. RESULTS: After removing duplicate entries, we screened 7138 records. After full-text review, we included 16 studies for qualitative analysis and three for meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, we found that the LoA were wide (-41.0 % to 34.0 %) and beyond the clinically acceptable difference. Subgroup analyses found that both novice and intermediate endoscopists had wide LoA (-45.0 % to 35.1 % and -54.7 % to 46.5 %, respectively) and expert endoscopists had narrow LoA (-14.2 % to 21.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: GI endoscopists are inaccurate in self-assessment of their endoscopic competency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that novice and intermediate endoscopists were inaccurate, while expert endoscopists have accurate self-assessment. While we advise against the sole use of self-assessment among novice and intermediate endoscopists, expert endoscopists may wish to integrate it into their practice.

Gender and Other Factors Associated with Endoscopy Volume Among U.S. Gastroenterology Fellows.

Gastroenterology (GI) fellows' ability to perform procedures are evaluated by the level of competency in the cognitive and technical components of procedures in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship programs.1 However, competency in endoscopic procedures correlates with the number of procedures performed.2 The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has recommended that a minimum of 130 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 275 colonoscopies be performed before procedural competency can be assessed.3 Few studies have examined program or trainee-related factors, such as trainee gender, that may influence procedural volume. In other procedural subspecialties, a gender gap exists in trainee procedural volumes, with female residents performing fewer surgical cases than males.4,5 However, whether gender-related disparities exist in endoscopy volume among GI trainees is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the impact of GI fellow gender on endoscopic procedural volume during training. Secondary aims were to determine if fellow career choice or other training program-related factors, such as program size, location, or setting, affect procedure volume during fellowship.

Endoscopic training during fellowship: A nationwide French study: Impact of theoretical courses and simulation-based training during fellowship.

BACKGROUND: In France, it is mandatory that gastroenterology fellows have mastered the basic level of endoscopy by the end of training. The aim of this study was to assess improvement in the quality of fellows' endoscopy training in France during the last four years. METHODS: All fellows in France in training were eligible for participation. A 21-item questionnaire was sent out. The primary outcome was the completion by fourth year fellows of all the number of procedures recommended. Results were compared with those of a 2016 survey. RESULTS: Two-hundred-and-sixty-five fellows responded to the survey. The participation rate was 47.0%. The mean age was 27.3 ± 1.0 years and 56.4% were female. Access to theoretical courses (63.7% vs. 30.6%, p < 0.001) and simulation-based training (virtual reality simulator: 58.4% vs. 28.2%, p < 0.001, animal models: 29.4% vs. 17.2%, p < 0.001) was significantly higher in 2020. Although the number of procedures did not increase, significantly higher perception of skill acquisition in colonoscopy as well as diminished pressure to advance procedures were noted. CONCLUSION: Access to theoretical courses and simulation-based training and perceived acquisition of numerous skills has gotten better. However, the quality of training in endoscopy still needs improvement.

Fabrication and Validation of a Cost-Effective Upper Endoscopy Simulator.

PURPOSE: Beginning with the graduating class of 2018, the American Board of Surgery (ABS) requires that residents complete the ABS Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum, Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES). This curriculum includes both didactic and simulator training. In the ideal setting residents gain proficiency using simulation prior to performing endoscopies in the clinical setting. This new requirement creates an increased demand for endoscopic simulators in all General Surgery residency programs. Due to the cost prohibitive nature of virtual reality simulators an economic alternative is needed. METHODS: A mechanical simulator was created from inexpensive items easily acquired at a hardware store and in the hospital. Total cost of the simulator was approximately $120 USD. To validate the simulator, experienced endoscopists completed a training session with the device. A seven-question Likert scale survey (1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree) was completed after the session evaluated the simulated experience versus live upper endoscopies and the device's ability to meet the goals of the FES curriculum. RESULTS: Eight proficient endoscopists completed the training session and survey and agreed that the device closely replicated live colonoscopies and would meet all training requirements in the FES curriculum. Mean responses to all seven survey questions ranged from 3.8-4.4. CONCLUSION: This device is a cost-effective method for simulating live upper endoscopies and is appropriate for use in FES training.

Current and future implications of COVID-19 on gastroenterology training and clinical practice.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected almost every country on the globe, affecting 185 countries with more than 2.6 million cases and 182,000 deaths as of April 22, 2020. The United States (US) has seen an exponential surge in the COVID-19 patients and has become the epicentre with more than 845,000 confirmed cases and 46,000 deaths. The governments and healthcare providers all over the world are racing with time to reduce the rate of increase in active cases by social distancing to flatten the curve of this pandemic. Practicing gastroenterologists are facing multiple challenges in the safe practice of medicine because of patient's inability to visit physicians' offices, endoscopy centers and the threat of potential virus spread through gastrointestinal secretions by endoscopies in emergent cases. The gastroenterological associations from Europe and North America have made position statements to guide gastroenterologists to navigate through the clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gastroenterology fellows are on the frontlines during the COVID-19 pandemic, experiencing personal, physical and economic stresses. They had to balance the programmatic changes to meet the demands of the patient care with the additional pressure to meet training requirements. Given the imperatives for social and physical distancing, training programmes have to implement innovative educational methods to substitute traditional teaching. Healthcare organisations must synchronise institutional workforce needs with trainee safety, education and well-being. In this perspective, we have discussed the challenges that can be anticipated and implementing strategies to support fellows during the times of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for fellows: a worthwhile investment in furthering surgical endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellows improves confidence and skills in performing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. This study evaluated the long-term retention of these confidence levels and investigated how fellows changed practices within their fellowships due to the course. METHODS: Participating MIS fellows completed surveys 6 months after the course. Respondents rated their confidence to independently perform 16 endoscopic procedures (1 = not at all; 5 = very), barriers to use of endoscopy, and current uses of endoscopy. Respondents also noted participation in additional skills courses and status of fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) certification. Comparisons of responses from the immediate post-course survey to the 6-month follow-up survey were examined. McNemar and paired t tests were used for analyses. RESULTS: 23 of 57 (40%) course participants returned to the 6-month survey. No major barriers to endoscopy use were identified. Fellows reported less competition with GI providers as a barrier to practice compared to their original post-course expectations (50% vs. 86%, p < 0.01). In addition, confidence was maintained in performing the majority of the 16 endoscopic procedures, although fellows reported significant decreases in confidence in independently performing snare polypectomy (- 26%; p < 0.05), control of variceal bleeding (- 39%; p < 0.05), colonic stenting (- 48%; p < 0.01), BARRX (- 40%; p < 0.05), and TIF (- 31%; p < 0.05). Fewer fellows used the GI suite to manage surgical problems than was anticipated post course (26% vs. 74%, p < 0.01). Fellows who passed FES noted no significant loss of independence, changes in use, or barriers to use. 18% made additional partnerships with industry after the course. 41% stated flexible endoscopy has influenced their post-fellowship job choice. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for MIS fellows results in long-term practice changes with participating fellows maintaining confidence to perform the majority of taught endoscopic procedures 6 months later. Additionally, fellows experienced no major barriers to implementing endoscopy into practice.

Impact of fellow training level on adverse events and operative time for common pediatric GI endoscopic procedures.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies on pediatric endoscopic training have not examined in detail if adverse events (AEs) are affected by the fellow's training level. We aimed to determine whether trainee presence and educational level increase AEs or operative time (OT) for pediatric intestinal endoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of AEs for all endoscopic procedures and retrospective analysis of OT (time of endoscope insertion until removal) for a sample of specified procedures at a tertiary children's hospital. AEs were categorized by severity grades: 1, home management; 2, outpatient evaluation; 3, hospitalization and/or repeat endoscopy; 4, surgery and/or intensive care unit admission; and 5, death. RESULTS: A total of 15,886 procedures (6257 with trainee) including 1627 therapeutic procedures (733 with trainee) were analyzed for AEs. Four hundred thirteen total AEs (2.60%) and 213 AEs grade 2 to 4 (1.34%) were identified. Fellow presence at any training level did not increase AE rates for any procedures. Median OT for 3762 EGDs decreased from 17 to 11 minutes from the first quarter to the fourth quarter of first-year fellowship and then remained stable. EGDs without fellows were shorter (9 minutes, P < .0001) compared with any training level. Median times of 1291 colonoscopies with EGD decreased from 55 to 51 to 47 minutes for fellows in the first half, second half of first-year fellowship, and second and third year, respectively. Attendings alone were faster (37 minutes, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Current pediatric endoscopic training for is safe regardless of fellow training level. Trainee efficiency improves during and after fellowship.

Endoscopic training: A nationwide survey of French fellows in gastroenterology.

BACKGROUND: During their 4 years of training, French fellows in gastroenterology should acquire theoretical and practical competency in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. AIMS: To evaluate the delivery of endoscopy training to French GI fellows and perception of learning. METHODS: A nationwide electronic survey was carried out of French GI fellows using an anonymous, 17-item electronic questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 291 out of 484 (60%) GI fellows responded to the survey. Only 40% of subjects had access to theoretical training and/or virtual simulators. Only 49% and 35% of fourth year fellows had reached the threshold numbers of EGD and colonoscopies recommended by the European section and Board of gastroenterology and hepatology. Sixty-two percent and 57% of trainees reported having insufficient knowledge in interpreting gastric and colic lesions. Access to dedicated endoscopy activity for at least 8 weeks during the year was the only independent factor associated with the achievement of the recommended annual threshold number of procedures. CONCLUSION: The access of fellows to theoretical training and to preclinical virtual simulators is still insufficient. Personalized support and regular assessment of cognitive and technical acquisition over the 4 years of training seems to be necessary.

Organization of future training in bariatric gastroenterology.

A world-wide rise in the prevalence of obesity continues. This rise increases the occurrence of, risks of, and costs of treating obesity-related medical conditions. Diet and activity programs are largely inadequate for the long-term treatment of medically-complicated obesity. Physicians who deliver gastrointestinal care after completing traditional training programs, including gastroenterologists and general surgeons, are not uniformly trained in or familiar with available bariatric care. It is certain that gastrointestinal physicians will incorporate new endoscopic methods into their practice for the treatment of individuals with medically-complicated obesity, although the long-term impact of these endoscopic techniques remains under investigation. It is presently unclear whether gastrointestinal physicians will be able to provide or coordinate important allied services in bariatric surgery, endocrinology, nutrition, psychological evaluation and support, and social work. Obtaining longitudinal results examining the effectiveness of this ad hoc approach will likely be difficult, based on prior experience with other endoscopic measures, such as the adenoma detection rates from screening colonoscopy. As a long-term approach, development of a specific curriculum incorporating one year of subspecialty training in bariatrics to the present training of gastrointestinal fellows needs to be reconsidered. This approach should be facilitated by gastrointestinal trainees' prior residency training in subspecialties that provide care for individuals with medical complications of obesity, including endocrinology, cardiology, nephrology, and neurology. Such training could incorporate additional rotations with collaborating providers in bariatric surgery, nutrition, and psychiatry. Since such training would be provided in accredited programs, longitudinal studies could be developed to examine the potential impact on accepted measures of care, such as complication rates, outcomes, and costs, in individuals with medically-complicated obesity.

Is current surgery resident and GI fellow training adequate to pass FES?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the adequacy of current surgical residency and gastroenterology (GI) fellowship flexible endoscopy training as measured by performance on the FES examination. METHODS: Fifth-year general surgery residents and GI fellows across six institutions were invited to participate. All general surgery residents had met ACGME/ABS case volume requirements as well as additional institution-specific requirements for endoscopy. All participants completed FES testing at the end of their respective academic year. Procedure volumes were obtained from ACGME case logs. Curricular components for each specialty and institution were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-eight (28 surgery and 20 GI) trainees completed the examination. Average case numbers for residents were 76 ± 26 colonoscopies and 45 ± 12 EGDs. Among GI fellows, PGY4 s (N = 10) reported 99 ± 64 colonoscopies and 147 ± 79 EGDs. PGY5 s (N = 3) reported 462 ± 307 colonoscopies and 411 ± 260 EGDs. PGY6 GI fellows (N = 7) reported 515 ± 111 colonoscopies and 418 ± 146 EGDs. The overall pass rate for all participants was 75 %, with 68 % of residents and 85 % of fellows passing both the cognitive and skills components. For surgery residents, pass rates were 75 % for manual skills and 85.7 % for cognitive. On the skills examination, Task 2 (loop reduction) was associated with the lowest performance. Skills scores correlated with both colonoscopy (r = 0.46, p < 0.001) and EGD experience (r = 0.46, p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics curves were examined among the resident cohort. The minimum number of total cases associated with passing the FES skills component was 103. Significant variability existed in curricular components across institutions. DISCUSSION: These data suggest that current flexible endoscopy training may not be sufficient for all trainees to pass the examination. Implementing additional components of the FEC may prove beneficial in achieving more uniform pass rates on the FES examination.

A Procedural and Educational Experience Following Creation of an Advanced Pediatric Endoscopy Service.

Advanced endoscopic procedures occur infrequently enough in pediatric patients to preclude effective maintenance of competence among all pediatric gastroenterologists. A recent study suggests that fellows are largely unable to achieve the prescribed case volume recommended to achieve competence. We sought to describe the procedural and educational experience following the creation of an advanced pediatric endoscopy service in response to declining confidence among practice members regarding advanced procedures. We found most advanced endoscopy cases (90%) were accomplished during routine business hours with little seasonal variation. Esophageal dilations occurred far more than all other procedures provided by this service. Control of nonvariceal bleeding, feeding tube placement, enteroscopy, and needle knife therapy, among others, were performed exclusively but relatively infrequently by members of this advanced endoscopy service. Fellows were present for many cases, although they participated in relatively few. We conclude that the creation of an advanced endoscopy service permits distillation of rare but technically demanding cases to few providers, ensuring maintenance of skills, although the role of fellows remains in question.

Training non-physicians to do endoscopy: Feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in women and men worldwide. Training non-physicians including nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to perform endoscopy can provide the opportunity to expand access to CRC screening as demand for endoscopic procedures continues to grow. A formal program, incorporating didactic instruction and hands-on practice in addition to oversight, is required to train non-physicians to perform endoscopy as safely and effectively as physicians. Additionally, the context in which the non-physician endoscopy program is organized will dictate key program characteristics including remuneration, participant recruitment and professional and legal considerations. This review explores the evidence in support of non-physician based endoscopy, potential challenges in implementing non-physician endoscopy and requirements for a high-quality program to support training and implementation.

Setting up the Pediatric Endoscopy Unit.

As pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to develop and evolve, pediatric gastroenterologists are more frequently called on to develop and direct a pediatric endoscopy unit. Lack of published literature and focused training in fellowship can render decision making about design, capacity, operation, equipment purchasing, and staffing challenging. To help guide management decisions, we distributed a short survey to 18 pediatric gastroenterology centers throughout the United States and Canada. This article provides practical guidance by summarizing available expert opinions on the topic of setting up a pediatric endoscopy unit.

Training and Assessment in Pediatric Endoscopy.

A key aspect of pediatric gastroenterology practice is the ability to perform endoscopy procedures safely, effectively, and efficiently. Similar to adult endoscopy, performance of pediatric endoscopy requires the acquisition of related technical, cognitive, and integrative competencies to effectively diagnose and manage gastrointestinal disorders in children. However, the distinctive requirements of pediatric patients and their families and the differential spectrum of disease highlight the need for a pediatric-specific training curriculum and assessment framework to ensure endoscopic procedures are performed safely and successfully in children. This review outlines the current state of evidence as it pertains to pediatric endoscopy training and assessment.

Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Training procedural skills in GI endoscopy once focused on threshold numbers. As threshold numbers poorly reflect individual competence, the focus gradually shifts towards a more individual approach. Tools to assess and document individual learning progress are being developed and incorporated in dedicated training curricula. However, there is a lack of consensus and training guidelines differ worldwide, which reflects uncertainties on optimal set-up of a training programme. AIMS: The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the currently available literature for the use of training and assessment methods in GI endoscopy. Second, we aimed to identify the role of simulator-based training as well as the value of continuous competence assessment in patient-based training. Third, we aimed to propose a structured training curriculum based on the presented evidence. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in the available medical and educational literature databases. The results were systematically reviewed and studies were included using a predefined protocol with independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus round. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 5846 studies. Ninety-four relevant studies on simulators, assessment methods, learning curves and training programmes for GI endoscopy met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies on simulator validation were included. Good validity was demonstrated for four simulators. Twenty-three studies reported on simulator training and learning curves, including 17 randomised control trials. Increased performance on a virtual reality (VR) simulator was shown in all studies. Improved performance in patient-based assessment was demonstrated in 14 studies. Four studies reported on the use of simulators for assessment of competence levels. Current simulators lack the discriminative power to determine competence levels in patient-based endoscopy. Eight out of 14 studies on colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endosonography reported on learning curves in patient-based endoscopy and proved the value of this approach for measuring performance. Ten studies explored the numbers needed to gain competence, but the proposed thresholds varied widely between them. Five out of nine studies describing the development and evaluation of assessment tools for GI endoscopy provided insight into the performance of endoscopists. Five out of seven studies proved that intense training programmes result in good performance. CONCLUSIONS: The use of validated VR simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning of practical skills. Learning curves are valuable for the continuous assessment of performance and are more relevant than threshold numbers. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating simulation-based as well as patient-based training in GI endoscopy. A complete curriculum with the assessment of competence throughout training needs to be developed for all GI endoscopy procedures.