Training and competency in endoscopic mucosal resection

Development of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards for training in advanced endoscopy within dedicated advanced endoscopy fellowship programs

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Training in interventional endoscopy is offered by nonaccredited advanced endoscopy fellowship programs (AEFPs). The number of these programs has increased dramatically with a concurrent increase in the breadth and complexity of interventional endoscopy procedures. Accreditation is governed by competency-based education, yet what constitutes a "high-quality" nonaccredited AEFP has not been defined. Using an evidence-based consensus process, we aimed to establish standards for AEFPs.

METHODS

The RAND UCLA appropriateness method, a well-described modified Delphi process to develop quality indicators, was used. A task force established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy drafted potential quality indicators (structure, process, and outcome) in 6 categories: activity preceding training; structure of AEFPs; training in ERCP, EUS, and EMR; and luminal stent placement. Three rounds of iterative feedback from 20 experts were conducted. Round 0 involved discussion of project details. In round 1, experts independently ranked proposed quality indicators on a 9-point interval scale ranging from highly inappropriate (1) to highly appropriate (9). Next, proposed quality indicators were discussed and reworded in a group meeting followed by round 2, in which experts independently reranked proposed quality indicators and provided benchmarks (when applicable). The median score for each quality indicator was calculated. Mean absolute deviation from the median was calculated, and appropriateness of potential quality indicators was assessed using the BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, P value method, and interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry definition. A quality indicator was deemed appropriate if the median score was ≥7 and met criteria for appropriateness using all 3 defined statistical methods.

RESULTS

Of 89 proposed quality indicators, 37 statements met criteria as appropriate for a quality indicator (activity preceding training, 2; structure of AEFPs, 10; training in ERCP, 7; training in EUS, 8; training in EMR, 7; luminal stent placement, 3). Minimum thresholds were defined for 19 relevant quality indicators for number of trainers, procedures during fellowship, and procedures before assessment of competence. Among the final appropriate quality indicators were that all trainees should undergo qualitative and quantitative competence assessments using validated tools at least quarterly with documented feedback throughout the training period and that trainees should track outcomes and relevant quality metrics for specific procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus process using validated methodology established standards for an AEFP in an effort to ensure adequate training in the most commonly taught interventional endoscopic procedures (ERCP, EUS, EMR, and luminal stent placement) during fellowship. An important component of an AEFP is the use of competency-based assessments that are compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System, with the goal of ensuring that trainees achieve specific milestones in their progression to achieving cognitive and technical competency.

Does completing advanced endoscopy fellowship improve outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection?

BACKGROUND

It was reported that about 60% of the physicians in the USA believed that their Gastroenterology fellowship poorly prepared them for large polyp resection. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy and complication rates between skilled general gastroenterologists who perform high volume of EMR and advanced endoscopists.

METHODS

We identified 140 patients with documented large colonic polyps treated by 4 providers using EMR technique at Carilion Clinic, in Roanoke, Virginia, USA between 01/01/2014-12/31/2017, with follow-up through 10-2018. Information on demographics, clinical and pathological features of high-risk polyps (i.e., size, histology, site, and degree of dysplasia), timing of surveillance endoscopies, tools used during resection, and skills of performing endoscopist's were extracted. The cumulative risks of polyp recurrence after first resection using EMR technique were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients were identified (mean age, 64.1±11.2 years; 47.1% males). Fifty-five polyps (39.3%) were removed by 2 skilled gastroenterologists and 85 (60.7%) were removed by advanced endoscopists. Most of the polyps resected were located in the right colon (63.6%) and roughly half of the polyps were removed in piecemeal fashion. At follow-up endoscopy, the advanced endoscopy group had lower polyp recurrence rates. The median recurrence after polypectomy was significantly different between the groups (0.88 and 1.03 years for skilled gastroenterologists who did not complete and completed EMR hands-on workshops; respectively vs. 3.99 years for the advanced endoscopist who did not complete EMR hands-on workshop, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for additional EMR training since polyp recurrence was significantly different between the groups despite high rates of piecemeal resection in the advanced endoscopy groups.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.