A prospective study of patient safety incidents in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Patient safety incidents in endoscopy: a human factors analysis of nonprocedural significant harm incidents from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS)

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in understanding and reducing the risk of endoscopic procedures, there is little consideration of the safety of the wider endoscopy service. Patient safety incidents (PSIs) still occur. We sought to identify nonprocedural PSIs (nPSIs) and their causative factors from a human factors perspective and generate ideas for safety improvement.

METHODS

Endoscopy-specific PSI reports were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A retrospective, cross-sectional human factors analysis of data was performed. Two independent researchers coded data using a hybrid thematic analysis approach. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was used to code contributory factors. Analysis informed creation of driver diagrams and key recommendations for safety improvement in endoscopy.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2019, 1181 endoscopy-specific PSIs of significant harm were reported across England and Wales, with 539 (45.6%) being nPSIs. Five categories accounted for over 80% of all incidents, with "follow-up and surveillance" being the largest (23.4% of all nPSIs). From the free-text incident reports, 487 human factors codes were identified. Decision-based errors were the most common act prior to PSI occurrence. Other frequent preconditions to incidents were focused on environmental factors, particularly overwhelmed resources, patient factors, and ineffective team communication. Lack of staffing, standard operating procedures, effective systems, and clinical pathways were also contributory. Seven key recommendations for improving safety have been made in response to our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first national-level human factors analysis of endoscopy-specific PSIs. This work will inform safety improvement strategies and should empower individual services to review their approach to safety.

Identifying a list of healthcare 'never events' to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Never events (NEs) are patient safety incidents that are preventable and so serious they should never happen. To reduce NEs, several frameworks have been introduced over the past two decades; however, NEs and their harms continue to occur. These frameworks have varying events, terminology and preventability, which hinders collaboration. This systematic review aims to identify the most serious and preventable events for targeted improvement efforts by answering the following questions: Which patient safety events are most frequently classified as never events? Which ones are most commonly described as entirely preventable?

METHODS

For this narrative synthesis systematic review we searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and CINAHL for articles published from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021. We included papers of any study design or article type (excluding press releases/announcements) that listed NEs or an existing NE framework.

RESULTS

Our analyses included 367 reports identifying 125 unique NEs. Those most frequently reported were surgery on the wrong body part, wrong surgical procedure, unintentionally retained foreign objects and surgery on the wrong patient. Researchers classified 19.4% of NEs as 'wholly preventable'. Those most included in this category were surgery on the wrong body part or patient, wrong surgical procedure, improper administration of a potassium-containing solution and wrong-route administration of medication (excluding chemotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

To improve collaboration and facilitate learning from errors, we need a single list that focuses on the most preventable and serious NEs. Our review shows that surgery on the wrong body part or patient, or the wrong surgical procedure best meet these criteria.

Global trends in training and credentialing guidelines for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review

Background and study aims  Credentialing, the process through which an institution assesses and validates an endoscopist's qualifications to independently perform a procedure, can vary by region and country. Little is known about these inter-societal and geographic differences. We aimed to systematically characterize credentialing recommendations and requirements worldwide. Methods  We conducted a systematic review of credentialing practices among gastrointestinal and endoscopy societies worldwide. An electronic search as well as hand-search of World Endoscopy Organization members' websites was performed for credentialing documents. Abstracts were screened in duplicate and independently. Data were collected on procedures included in each document (e. g. colonoscopy, ERCP) and types of credentialing statements (procedural volume, key performance indicators (KPIs), and competency assessments). The primary objective was to qualitatively describe and compare the available credentialing recommendations and requirements from the included studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data when appropriate. Results  We screened 653 records and included 20 credentialing documents from 12 societies. Guidelines most commonly included credentialing statements for colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and ERCP. For colonoscopy, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 150 to 275 and adenoma detection rate (ADR) from 20 % to 30%. For EGD, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 130 to 1000, and duodenal intubation rate of 95 % to 100%. For ERCP, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 100 to 300 with selective duct cannulation success rate of 80 % to 90 %. Guidelines also reported on flexible sigmoidoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound. Conclusions  While some metrics such as ADR were relatively consistent among societies, there was substantial variation among societies with respect to procedural volume and KPI statements.

Simulation-based mastery learning in gastrointestinal endoscopy training

Simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) is an emerging form of competency-based training that has been proposed as the next standard method for procedural task training, including that in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Current basic gastrointestinal endoscopy training relies on the number of procedures performed, and it has been criticized for its lack of objective standards that result in variable skills among trainees and its association with patient safety risk. Thus, incorporating simulators into a competency-based curriculum seems ideal for gastrointestinal endoscopy training. The curriculum for SBML in gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently being developed and has promising potential to translate into the clinical performance. Unlike the present apprenticeship model of “see one, do one, teach one,” SBML integrates a competency-based curriculum with specific learning objectives alongside simulation-based training. This allows trainees to practice essential skills repeatedly, receive feedback from experts, and gradually develop their abilities to achieve mastery. Moreover, trainees and trainers need to understand the learning targets of the program so that trainees can focus their learning on the necessary skills and trainers can provide structured feedback based on the expected outcomes. In addition to learning targets, an assessment plan is essential to provide trainees with future directions for their improvement and ensure patient safety by issuing a passing standard. Finally, the SBML program should be planned and managed by a specific team and conducted within a developed and tested curriculum. This review discusses the current state of gastrointestinal endoscopy training and the role of SBML in that field.

Learning curves in ERCP during advanced endoscopy training: a Canadian multicenter prospective study

Background and study aims  Growing emphasis on quality and patient safety has supported the shift toward competency-based medical education for advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs). In this study, we aimed to examine Canadian AETs learning curves and achievement of competence using an ERCP assessment tool with strong evidence of validity. Methods  This prospective study was conducted at five institutions across Canada from 2017-2018. Data on every fifth procedure performed by trainees were collected using the United Kingdom Joint Advisory Joint Advisory Group of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) ERCP Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, which includes a four-point rating scale for 27 items. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to create learning curves for overall supervision ratings and ERCP DOPS items by plotting scores for procedures performed during training. Results  Eleven trainees who were evaluated for 261 procedures comprised our sample. The median number of evaluations by site was 49 (Interquartile range (IQR) 31-76) and by trainee was 15 (IQR 11-45). The overall cannulation rate by trainees was 82 % (241/261), and the native papilla cannulation rate was 78 % (149/191). All trainees achieved competence in the "overall supervision" domain of the ERCP DOPS by the end of their fellowship. Trainees achieved competency in all individual domains, except for tissue sampling and sphincteroplasty. Conclusions  Canadian AETs are graduating from fellowship programs with acceptable levels of competence for overall ERCP performance and for the most specific tasks. Learning curves may help identify areas of deficiency that may require supplementary training, such as tissue sampling.

Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence

BACKGROUND

Assessment tools are essential for endoscopy training, being required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence. We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports the available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity.

METHODS

We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until 8 April 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) from the five sources and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

RESULTS

From 10 841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 each assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1-15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5-11.5 (maximum score 14.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared with other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on the use of these tools in credentialing examinations.

A three-tiered approach to investigating patient safety incidents in endoscopy: 4-year experience in a teaching hospital

Background and study aims  Patient safety incidents (PSIs) in endoscopy, although infrequent, can lead to significant morbidity or mortality. There is no commonly agreed strategy to investigate PSIs. We describe a three-tiered approach to investigation to facilitate appropriate action, shared learning, and timely disclosure to patients as mandated in the UK health system by the Duty of Candor (DoC). Methods  PSIs were identified prospectively over a 3-year, 7-month period in a large teaching hospital. Level of investigation was agreed by a group of three senior clinicians. Levels of investigation comprised: 1) rapid desktop review; 2) departmental "mini-root cause analysis" (mini-RCA, developed internally); and 3) hospital-level RCA or mortality review. Results  Of 63006 procedures there were 73 reported cases of significant harm. Eleven resulted in death. Thirty PSIs were related to hepatobiliary endoscopy, 17 to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and 26 to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Hospital-level RCA was performed in six cases, mini-RCA/mortality review in 14, and 53 were examined by the endoscopy lead. Findings were presented in an endoscopy user group (EUG) meeting. There was learning in relation to informed consent, pre-procedural radiology reviews, pre-procedural treatment, escalation planning, teamwork and communication, preparation of equipment, and recognition of delayed complications. Open and honest communication with patients and relatives was facilitated. Conclusions  The introduction of an endoscopy-tailored investigation tool, the mini-RCA, as part of a three-tiered approach, facilitated investigation, appropriate action, learning, and disclosure after PSIs.

A Descriptive Analysis of Capsule Endoscopy Events in the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database

Introduction

The malfunction of capsule endoscopy (CE) devices is a significant reason for the failure of CE procedures, which could hinder and prevent diagnosis. Unfortunately, malfunction-related adverse events (AEs) caused by CE devices are rarely reported in publications. Although most malfunction-related AEs could not lead to physical harm, they could reduce the efficiency of medical care and increase medical costs. The manufacturer and user facility device experience (MAUDE) database, a publicly accessible resource for patient safety, contains not only the common complications of CE but also valuable malfunction-related AEs, which have been underutilized. Therefore, the study aims to discover and analyze the possible AEs associated with CE and demonstrate the utility of the MAUDE reports to promote patient safety.

Materials and Methods

We acquired MAUDE reports of CE systems from January 01, 2008, to July 31, 2020, through a systematic search strategy. We utilized the manufacturers, brand names, and product codes as search terms from which medical device reports including structured data and narrative texts were extracted, followed by a manual review of the narrative texts, reporter occupation, device involved, event type and the phase of the event; finally, patient outcomes were recorded and analyzed as per CE categories and characteristics.

Results

A total of 377 CEs medical device reports were retrieved, and 342 reports were included after reviewing. There were 327 mandatory reports (96%) and 15 voluntary reports (4%). These reports referred to capsule endoscope (n = 213), sensing system (n = 66), patency capsule (n = 38), and capsule delivery device (n = 26). A total of 349 CE-related AEs were identified, including complications (n = 228), malfunction-related AEs (n = 109), and other events (n = 12). The composition of AEs was not the same for the CE devices. Complications were major AEs of capsule endoscope and patency capsule, but malfunction-related AEs were the most common in AEs of sensing systems and capsule delivery devices.

Conclusion

MAUDE serves as an invaluable data source for investigating malfunction-related AEs. In addition to common complications, malfunction of CE devices could threaten patient safety in CE procedures. Improving awareness of the malfunction of CE devices and raising adequate training for staff working in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic units could be critical and beneficial in preventing malfunction-related AEs.

[The Guideline "Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy"]

The guideline "Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy" (AWMF-register-no. 021/014) was published initially in 2008. Because of new and developing evidence, the guideline was updated in 2015. The aim of the guideline is to define the necessary structural, equipment and personnel requirements that contribute to minimizing the risk of sedation for endoscopy. In view of the high and increasing significance of gastrointestinal endoscopy, the guideline will remain highly relevant in the future. Essential aspects are the selection of sedatives/hypnotics, structural requirements, personnel requirements with regard to number, availability and training, management of complications and quality assurance. In this article, the development and evaluation of the evidence and its influence on the practical implementation, in particular for anaesthesia, are highlighted.

'Case of the month': a novel way to learn from endoscopy-related patient safety incidents

Patient safety incidents (PSIs) are unintended or unexpected incidents which can or do lead to patient harm. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) acknowledges that PSIs should be reviewed by endoscopy services and learning shared among staff. It is recognised that more could be done to promote shared learning as outlined by the JAG 'Improving Safety and Reducing Error in Endoscopy' strategy. The 'Case of the month' series aims to provide a broad selection of cases and subsequent learning that can be shared among services and their workforce. This review focuses on five case vignettes that highlight a variety of PSIs in endoscopy. A structured approach, based on incident analysis methodology, is applied to each case to categorise PSIs and develop learning points. Learning is directed toward the individual, team and healthcare organisation. A selection of methods to disseminate learning at local, regional and national levels are also described.

Non-technical skills curriculum incorporating simulation-based training improves performance in colonoscopy among novice endoscopists: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-technical skills (NTS), involving cognitive, social and interpersonal skills that complement technical skills, are important for the completion of safe and efficient procedures. We investigated the impact of a simulation-based curriculum with dedicated NTS training on novice endoscopists' performance of clinical colonoscopies.

METHODS

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at a single center. Novice endoscopists were randomized to a control curriculum or a NTS curriculum. The control curriculum involved a didactic session, virtual reality (VR) simulator colonoscopy training, and integrated scenario practice using a VR simulator, a standardized patient, and endoscopy nurse. Feedback and training were provided by experienced endoscopists. The NTS curriculum group received similar training that included a small-group session on NTS, feedback targeting NTS, and access to a self-reflective NTS checklist. The primary outcome was performance during two clinical colonoscopies, assessed using the Joint Advisory Group Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG DOPS) tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine participants completed the study. The NTS group (n = 21) had superior clinical performance during their first (P < 0.001) and second clinical colonoscopies (P < .0.001), compared to the control group (n = 18). The NTS group performed significantly better on the VR simulator (P < 0.05) and in the integrated scenario (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that dedicated NTS training led to improved performance of clinical colonoscopies among novices.

Improving safety and reducing error in endoscopy (ISREE): a survey of UK services

BACKGROUND

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) 'Improving Safety and Reducing Error in Endoscopy' (ISREE) strategy was developed in 2018. In line with the strategy, a survey was conducted within the JAG census in 2019 to gain further insights and understanding of key safety-related areas within UK endoscopy.

METHODS

Questions were developed using the ISREE strategy as a guide and adapted by key JAG stakeholders. They were incorporated into the 2019 JAG census of UK endoscopy services. Quantitative and qualitative statistical methods were employed to analyse the results.

RESULTS

There was a 68% response rate. There was regional variability in the provision of out-of-hours GIB services (p<0.001). Across 1 month, 1535 incidents were reported across all services. There was a significantly higher proportion of reported incidents in acute services compared with others (p<0.001). Technical and training incidents were likely to be reported significantly differently to all other incident types. 74% of services have an endoscopy-specific sedation policy and 42% have a named sedation or anaesthetic lead for endoscopy. Services highlighted a desire for more anaesthetic-supported lists. Only 66% of services stated they have an effective strategy for supporting upskilling of endoscopists. Across acute services, 56% have access to human factors and endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) training. Patient feedback is used in several ways to improve services, develop training and promote shared learning among endoscopy users.

CONCLUSIONS

The census provides a benchmark for key safety-related characteristics of endoscopy services. These results have highlighted key areas to develop, guided by the ISREE strategy.

Patient participation in gastrointestinal endoscopy - From patients' perspectives

Background

Patient participation is associated with satisfaction and improved health‐related outcomes. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient participation is an underexplored area.

Objective

To gain understanding on patients' experiences, attitudes and preferences concerning patient participation in the endoscopy pathway.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews with endoscopy patients (n = 17, female n = 8, male n = 9, ages 19‐80 years) were performed. Interview transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Participants were recruited by purposive sampling from an endoscopy unit in a Swedish university hospital. Inclusion:≥ 18 years, fluency in Swedish and recent experience of endoscopy at the unit.

Results

Five generic categories emerged, two within the area of the patient's role, which was described as active or passive/included or excluded. Another three generic categories related to factors, critical to active participation, including organizational aspects, impressions of staff and individual circumstances were identified. In this context, patient participation described in the interviews was on a low to basic level, although sometimes reaching a higher level when staff ‘invited’ patients in decision making.

Discussion

This study contributes to the understanding of patient participation in endoscopy. Patients are in an inferior position and need support from the staff for an active role in their care. Although there were variations on the perceived importance of different factors, a heavy responsibility lies on the endoscopy staff to acknowledge the patients' individual needs and to facilitate patient participation.

Conclusions

Endoscopy staff has a key role in supporting patient participation. In endoscopy settings, patient participation is vulnerable to multiple factors.

Safety and Efficacy of Moderate Sedation in Super Obese Patients Undergoing Lower and Upper GI Endoscopy: a Case-Control Study

PURPOSE

Obesity is a disease of increasing prevalence. There is minimal research on the safety of sedation for general endoscopic procedures among super obese patients (BMI ≥ 50). The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety of moderate sedation and endoscopic procedural outcomes for super obese patients in a case-control study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We completed an age and sex-matched case-control study comparing 132 super obese patients with 132 non-obese controls. We assessed intra-procedure adverse events, delayed adverse events, doses of sedation medication used, and procedure duration at a tertiary care setting.

RESULTS

The mean BMI for the obese cohort was 55.6 compared with 22.5 for the controls (P < 0.001). The mean intra-procedure fentanyl and midazolam dose was higher for the obese patients compared with the controls, fentanyl 180 mcg, midazolam 7.7 mg vs fentanyl 148 mcg, midazolam 6.4 mg, respectively (P < 0.001). There was a significantly higher percentage of brief intra-procedure hypoxia (oxygen blood saturation < 90%) for the obese patients compared with the controls, 5% vs 0% (P = 0.02). There was no difference in delayed adverse events with 2% of the cases and 2% of the controls having delayed adverse events (P = 1.0). Procedure completion rates were 100% for both cases and controls.

CONCLUSION

General endoscopic procedures can be safely and effectively performed in super obese patients with moderate sedation. Brief intra-procedure hypoxia more commonly occurs in super obese patients, and higher medication doses are required.

Impact of the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) on endoscopy services in the UK and beyond

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) was initially established in 1994 to standardise endoscopy training across specialties. Over the last two decades, the position of JAG has evolved to meet its current role of quality assuring all aspects of endoscopy in the UK to provide the highest quality, patient-centred care. Drivers such as changes to healthcare agenda, national audits, advances in research and technology and the advent of population-based cancer screening have underpinned this shift in priority. Over this period, JAG has spearheaded various quality assurance initiatives with support from national stakeholders. These have led to the achievement of notable milestones in endoscopy quality assurance, particularly in the three major areas of: (1) endoscopy training, (2) accreditation of endoscopy services (including the Global Rating Scale), and (3) accreditation of screening endoscopists. These developments have changed the landscape of UK practice, serving as a model to promote excellence in endoscopy. This review provides a summary of JAG initiatives and assesses the impact of JAG on training and endoscopy services within the UK and beyond.

Virtual reality simulation in endoscopy training: Current evidence and future directions

Virtual reality simulation is becoming the standard when beginning endoscopic training. It offers various benefits including learning in a low-stakes environment, improvement of patient safety and optimization of valuable endoscopy time. This is a review of the evidence surrounding virtual reality simulation and its efficacy in teaching endoscopic techniques. There have been 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated virtual reality simulation as a teaching tool in endoscopy. 10 RCTs studied virtual reality in colonoscopy, 3 in flexible sigmoidoscopy, 5 in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and 3 in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. RCTs reported many outcomes including distance advanced in colonoscopy, comprehensive assessment of technical and non-technical skills, and patient comfort. Generally, these RCTs reveal that trainees with virtual reality simulation based learning improve in all of these areas in the beginning of the learning process. Virtual reality simulation was not effective as a replacement of conventional teaching methods. Additionally, feedback was shown to be an essential part of the learning process. Overall, virtual reality endoscopic simulation is emerging as a necessary augment to conventional learning given the ever increasing importance of patient safety and increasingly valuable endoscopy time; although work is still needed to study the nuances surrounding its integration into curriculum.

Improvement in staff compliance with a safety standard checklist in endoscopy in a tertiary centre

National Health Service England published the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIP) in 2015. They mandated that individual trusts produce Local Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (LocSSIPs), a set of safety standards drawn from the NatSSIP that apply to a particular clinical situation in a given department, for all invasive procedures.

The project goal was to design and implement the LocSSIP within the endoscopy department. A draft LocSSIP was produced, and a pilot study conducted to gain initial feedback on its use. Version 1 of the checklist was produced and after approval, rolled out for use within the endoscopy department at ‘time out’ and ‘sign out’. A scoring system was developed that allowed the quality of the performance of LocSSIPs to be assessed and recorded as a ‘compliance score’.

After 2 months, an independent observer spent a week assessing use of the checklist, recording completion and a compliance score. Analysis of this data led to a number of changes in performing the checklist, wider multidisciplinary team education and integration of the checklist into existing documentation, before reassessing at 12 months.

In 2016, ‘time out’ checks were completed in 100% of cases, but full completion was only observed in 68%. ‘Sign out’ checks were completed in 91% of cases, with full completion in 71%. In 2017, ‘time out’ checks were completed in 100% of cases, with full completion in 85%. ‘Sign out’ checks were completed in 100% of cases, with full completion in 91%.

The composite score for compliance in 2016 was 57% increasing to 90% in 2017.

In conclusion, stronger departmental leadership, broadening education and integration of the checklist into routine documentation to reduce duplication led to significant improvements in compliance with use of the checklist. Ongoing education and assessment is imperative to ensure that compliance is maintained to ensure patient safety.

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy has traditionally been taught with novices practicing on real patients under the supervision of experienced endoscopists. Recently, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought simulation training to the forefront. Simulation training can provide trainees with the chance to practice their skills in a learner-centred, risk-free environment. It is important to ensure that skills gained through simulation positively transfer to the clinical environment. This updated review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following health professions, educational, and computer databases until 12 July 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. We also searched the grey literature until November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing VR endoscopy simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training with outcomes measured on humans in the clinical setting, including conventional patient-based training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation, or no training. We also included trials comparing two different methods of VR training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. We pooled data for meta-analysis where participant groups were similar, studies assessed the same intervention and comparator, and had similar definitions of outcome measures. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes when studies reported the same or different outcome measures, respectively. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 trials (421 participants; 3817 endoscopic procedures). We judged three trials as at low risk of bias. Ten trials compared VR training with no training, five trials with conventional endoscopy training, one trial with another form of endoscopy simulation training, and two trials compared two different methods of VR training. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across our four comparisons, we did not perform a meta-analysis for several outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, low, or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus no training: There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect on composite score of competency (MD 3.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 6.36; 1 trial, 24 procedures; low-quality evidence). Composite score of competency was based on 5-point Likert scales assessing seven domains: atraumatic technique, colonoscope advancement, use of instrument controls, flow of procedure, use of assistants, knowledge of specific procedure, and overall performance. Scoring range was from 7 to 35, a higher score representing a higher level of competence. Virtual reality training compared to no training likely provides participants with some benefit, as measured by independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; 6 trials, 815 procedures; moderate-quality evidence). We evaluated overall rating of performance (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75; 1 trial, 18 procedures), visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00; 1 trial, 55 procedures), performance time (MD -0.20 minutes, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.30; 2 trials, 29 procedures), and patient discomfort (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.35; 2 trials, 145 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. No trials reported procedure-related complications or critical flaws (e.g. bleeding, luminal perforation) (3 trials, 550 procedures; moderate-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus conventional patient-based training: One trial reported composite score of competency but did not provide sufficient data for quantitative analysis. Virtual reality training compared to conventional patient-based training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 2 trials, 174 procedures; low-quality evidence). We evaluated performance time (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.80; 2 trials, 34 procedures), overall rating of performance (MD -0.90, 95% CI -4.40 to 2.60; 1 trial, 16 procedures), and visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.0, 95% CI -6.02 to 6.02; 1 trial, 18 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. Virtual reality training in combination with conventional training appears to be advantageous over VR training alone. No trials reported any procedure-related complications or critical flaws (3 trials, 72 procedures; very low-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus another form of endoscopy simulation: Based on one study, there were no differences between groups with respect to composite score of competency, performance time, and visualisation of mucosa. Virtual reality training in combination with another form of endoscopy simulation training did not appear to confer any benefit compared to VR training alone.Two methods of virtual reality training: Based on one study, a structured VR simulation-based training curriculum compared to self regulated learning on a VR simulator appears to provide benefit with respect to a composite score evaluating competency. Based on another study, a progressive-learning curriculum that sequentially increases task difficulty provides benefit with respect to a composite score of competency over the structured VR training curriculum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VR simulation-based training can be used to supplement early conventional endoscopy training for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, we found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of VR simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training. The quality of the current evidence was low due to inadequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding of outcome assessment in several trials. Further trials are needed that are at low risk of bias, utilise outcome measures with strong evidence of validity and reliability, and examine the optimal nature and duration of training.