Training in radial EUS: what is the best approach and is there a role for the nurse endoscopist?

Curriculum for diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize and enhance training in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This manuscript represents the outcome of a formal Delphi process resulting in an official Position Statement of the ESGE and provides a framework to develop and maintain skills in diagnostic EUS. This curriculum is set out in terms of the prerequisites prior to training; the recommended steps of training to a defined syllabus; the quality of training; and how competence should be defined and evidenced before independent practice. 1:  Trainees should have achieved competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before training in diagnostic EUS. 2:  The development of diagnostic EUS skills by methods that do not involve patients is advisable, but not mandatory, prior to commencing formal training in diagnostic EUS. 3:  A trainee's principal trainer should be performing adequate volumes of diagnostic EUSs to demonstrate maintenance of their own competence. 4:  Training centers for diagnostic EUS should offer expertise, as well as a high volume of procedures per year, to ensure an optimal level of quality for training. Under these conditions, training centers should be able to provide trainees with a sufficient wealth of experience in diagnostic EUS for at least 12 months. 5:  Trainees should engage in formal training and supplement this with a range of learning resources for diagnostic EUS, including EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (FNA/FNB). 6:  EUS training should follow a structured syllabus to guide the learning program. 7:  A minimum procedure volume should be offered to trainees during diagnostic EUS training to ensure that they have the opportunity to achieve competence in the technique. To evaluate competence in diagnostic EUS, trainees should have completed a minimum of 250 supervised EUS procedures: 80 for luminal tumors, 20 for subepithelial lesions, and 150 for pancreaticobiliary lesions. At least 75 EUS-FNA/FNBs should be performed, including mostly pancreaticobiliary lesions. 8:  Competence assessment in diagnostic EUS should take into consideration not only technical skills, but also cognitive and integrative skills. A reliable valid assessment tool should be used regularly during diagnostic EUS training to track the acquisition of competence and to support trainee feedback. 9:  A period of supervised practice should follow the start of independent activity. Supervision can be delivered either on site if other colleagues are already practicing EUS or by maintaining contacts with the training center and/or other EUS experts. 10:  Key performance measures including the annual number of procedures, frequency of obtaining a diagnostic sample during EUS-FNA/FNB, and adverse events should be recorded within an electronic documentation system and evaluated.

GAPS-EUS: a new and reliable tool for the assessment of basic skills and performance in EUS among endosonography trainees

Objective

Endosonography (EUS) is a useful but complex diagnostic modality which requires advanced endoscopy training and guidance by a supervisor. Since learning curves vary among individuals, assessment of the actual competence among EUS trainees is important.

Design/methods

We designed a novel assessment tool entitled Global Assessment of Performance and Skills in EUS (GAPS-EUS) for assessing skills among EUS trainees. Five quality indicators were marked on a five-grade scale by the supervisor (Observer Score) and by the trainee (Trainee Score). Trainees were included in two high-volume centres (Gothenburg, Sweden, and Bologna, Italy). Outcomes were feasibility, patient safety, reliability, and validity of GAPS-EUS in trainee-performed EUS procedures.

Results

Twenty-two EUS-trainees were assessed in a total of 157 EUS procedures with a completion rate of 157/157 (100 %) and a patient adverse event rate of 2/157 (1.3 %; gastroenteritis n=1, fever n=1). GAPS-EUS showed a high measurement reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient=0.87) and a high inter-rater reliability comparing the supervisor and the trainee (r=0.83, r²=0.69, p<0.001). The construct of GAPS-EUS was verified by comparing low-level and high-level performance procedures and the content validity by recording that the EUS-FNA manoeuvre resulted in a lower score than other aspects of EUS 3.07 (95% CI 2.91 to 3.23) vs 3.51 (95% CI 3.37 to 3.65) (p<0.001). External validity was confirmed via similar findings in both centres.

Conclusion

GAPS-EUS is an easy-to-use and reliable tool with a recorded high validity for the assessment of competence among trainees in EUS. It can be recommended to centres involved in the education of future endosonographers.

Trial registration number

NCT02455570.

Exploration of an effective training system for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases with EUS: A prospective study

Background and Objective:

There are limited data on multistage-based training programs focused on EUS. We aimed to explore an effective training system for diagnosing pancreaticobiliary diseases with EUS.

Materials and Methods:

Nine advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) with less EUS experience from nine institutions were recruited. The training system consisted of multiple stages and multi-teaching methods, including biliopancreatic standard scanning, anatomy and imaging knowledge, simulator, hands-on operations, error correction, and case analysis over a 12-month training period. Grading for technical and cognitive skills was assessed using The EUS Skills Assessment Tool.

Results:

After training, the overall scores for radial (4.16 ± 0.21 vs. 1.46 ± 0.16, P < 0.01) and linear (4.43 ± 0.20 vs. 1.63 ± 0.23, P < 0.01) scanning were significantly improved. The aortopulmonary window/mediastinum station can be learned more easily by AETs compared with other stations (P = 0023). The scanning of the descending part of the duodenum seemed to improve the slowest after training (P = 0.0072), indicating that the descending part of the duodenum can be more difficult and should be the focus of training. Every teaching method heightened EUS competence, especially case analysis and hands-on operations. AETs achieved equivalent EUS competence after training despite their initial experience. Through a poststudy questionnaire, it was found that all AETs strongly agreed they were satisfied with the training system, and their confidence was greatly enhanced when EUS was performed independently.

Conclusions:

The current multistage and multi-methods training system showed efficient performance in the cognitive and technical competence of EUS. Descending part of duodenum scanning was difficult for beginners and should be the focus of training.

The assessment of endosonographers in training

Endosonography (EUS) has an estimated long learning curve including the acquisition of both technical and cognitive skills. Trainees in EUS must learn to master intraprocedural steps such as echoendoscope handling and ultrasonographic imaging with the interpretation of normal anatomy and any pathology. In addition, there is a need to understand the periprocedural parts of the EUS-examination such as the indications and contraindications for EUS and potential adverse events that could occur post-EUS. However, the learning process and progress vary widely among endosonographers in training. Consequently, the performance of a certain number of supervised procedures during training does not automatically guarantee adequate competence in EUS. Instead, the assessment of EUS-competence should preferably be performed by the use of an assessment tool developed specifically for the evaluation of endosonographers in training. Such a tool, covering all the different steps of the EUS-procedure, would better depict the individual learning curve and better reflect the true competence of each trainee. This mini-review will address the issue of clinical education in EUS with respect to the evaluation of endosonographers in training. The aim of the article is to provide an informative overview of the topic. The relevant literature of the field will be reviewed and discussed. The current knowledge on how to assess the skills and competence of endosonographers in training is presented in detail.

Training in Endoscopy: Endoscopic Ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been recently established as an indispensable modality for the diagnosis and management of pancreatobiliary and gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. EUS proficiency requires both cognitive and technical abilities, including an understanding of the appropriate indications, the performance of appropriate evaluations before and after the procedure, and the management of procedure-related complications. An increasing demand for skills to handle a growing range of interventional EUS procedures and a continual shortage of EUS training programs are two major obstacles for EUS training. Acquiring the skills necessary to comprehend and conduct EUS often requires training beyond the scope of a standard GI fellowship program. In addition to traditional formal EUS training and preceptorships, regular short-term intensive EUS training programs that provide training at various levels may help EUS practitioners improve and maintain EUS-related knowledges and skills. Theoretical knowledge can be acquired from lectures, textbooks, atlases, slides, videotapes, digital video discs, interactive compact discs, and websites. Informal EUS training is generally based on 1- or 2-day intensive seminars, including didactic lectures, skills demonstrated by expert practitioners through live video-streaming of procedures, and hands-on learning using animal or phantom models.

When trainees reach competency in performing endoscopic ultrasound: a systematic review

Background/Study aim The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends that trainees complete 150 endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures before assessing competency. However, this recommendation is largely based on limited evidence and expert opinion. With new evidence suggesting that this historical threshold is underestimating training requirements, we evaluated the learning curve for achieving competency in EUS. Patients/Materials and methods Two investigators independently searched MEDLINE for full-text citations assessing the learning curve for achieving competency in EUS in the period 1946 to 25 March 2016. A learning curve was defined as either a tabulated or graphic representation of competency as a function of increasing EUS experience. Results Eight studies assessing 28 trainees and 7051 EUS procedures were included. When stratifying studies based on procedural indication: three studies assessed competency in evaluating mucosal lesions, three studies assessed competency in EUS fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and two studies assessed comprehensive competency. Among studies assessing mucosal lesion T-staging accuracy, competency was achieved by 65 to 231 procedures. Among studies assessing EUS-FNA, competency was achieved by 30 to 40 procedures. Among the two studies assessing comprehensive competency in EUS, competency was not achieved in either study across all trainees. Only four of 17 trainees reached competency by 225 to 295 EUS procedures. Conclusion As EUS competency assessment has evolved to more closely reflect independent clinical practice, the number of procedures required to achieve competency has risen well above ASGE recommendations. Advanced endoscopy training programs and specialty societies need to re-assess the structure of EUS training.

Measures of trainee performance in advanced endoscopy: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The diversity, technical skills required, and risk inherent to advanced endoscopy techniques all contribute to complex training curricula and steep learning curves. Since trainees develop endoscopy skills at different rates, there has been a shift towards competency-based training and certification. Validated endoscopy performance measures for trainees are, therefore, necessary. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and critically assess the existing evidence regarding measures of performance for trainees in advanced endoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from January 1980 to January 2016 was carried out using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases. MeSH terms related to 'advanced endoscopy' and 'performance' were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were face, content, and construct validity, as well as reliability.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 1,662 studies and 77 met the inclusion criteria after abstract and full-text review (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)=23, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)=30, colonoscopic polypectomy (CP)=11, balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE)=7, luminal stenting=3, radiofrequency ablation (RFA)=2, and endoscopic muscosal resection (EMR)=1). Good validity and reliability were found for measurement tools of overall performance in ERCP, EUS and CP, with applications for both patient-based and simulator training models. A number of specific technical skills were also shown to be valid measures of performance. These include: selective biliary cannulation, sphincterotomy, biliary stent placement, stone extraction and procedure time for ERCP; pancreatic solid mass T-staging, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) procedure time, number of EUS-FNA passes and puncture precision for EUS; procedure time and en bloc resection rate for CP; retrograde fluoroscopy time for BAE; and mean number of endoscopy sessions required to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CIEM) for RFA. The evidence for EMR and luminal stenting is of insufficient quality to make recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified multiple valid and readily available performance measures for advanced endoscopy trainees for ERCP, EUS, CP, BAE and RFA procedures. These tools should be considered in advanced endoscopy training programs wishing to move away from apprenticeship-based training and towards competency-based learning with the help of patient-based and simulator tools.

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.

Structured endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) training program improved knowledge and skills of trainees: Results from the Asian EUS Group

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A major reason impeding the growth of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in Asia is the lack of training availability. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of a short-term structured EUS training program in improving the knowledge and skill of EUS among trainees.

METHODS

The study was conducted in six workshops in six countries including Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore and Philippines, within a year. Trainees were evaluated using written and skill tests before and after completion of the training.

RESULTS

Pre- and post-workshop written tests from a total of 62 trainees were analyzed. Compared with pre-training, the trainees improved significantly in the overall mean (± SD) scores after the training (66.0 ± 0.3% to 77.5 ± 0.2%, P < 0.0001). Thirty-one trainees were randomly selected to undergo a skill test before and after the course. Compared with pre-training, the proportions of trainees who succeeded in locating each structure post-training were: celiac axis (36-80.5%), pancreatic body (51.5-80.5%), pancreatic body and tail (42-77.5%), splenic vein and artery (48.5-84%), left kidney (60-83%), and spleen (47-83%). Overall, there was a significant improvement in the proportion of trainees' successful localization of structures post-training compared to before training (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Following a structured training program, trainees' knowledge and skills in EUS improved significantly. Structured training courses appear to be an effective way of imparting EUS knowledge and skills to aspiring endosonographers in the Asian region.

Non-physician endoscopists: A systematic review

AIM: To examine the available evidence on safety, competency and cost-effectiveness of nursing staff providing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services.

METHODS: The literature was searched for publications reporting nurse endoscopy using several databases and specific search terms. Studies were screened against eligibility criteria and for relevance. Initial searches yielded 74 eligible and relevant articles; 26 of these studies were primary research articles using original datasets relating to the ability of non-physician endoscopists. These publications included a total of 28883 procedures performed by non-physician endoscopists.

RESULTS: The number of publications in the field of non-specialist gastrointestinal endoscopy reached a peak between 1999 and 2001 and has decreased thereafter. 17/26 studies related to flexible sigmoidoscopies, 5 to upper GI endoscopy and 6 to colonoscopy. All studies were from metropolitan centres with nurses working under strict supervision and guidance by specialist gastroenterologists. Geographic distribution of publications showed the majority of research was conducted in the United States (43%), the United Kingdom (39%) and the Netherlands (7%). Most studies conclude that after appropriate training nurse endoscopists safely perform procedures. However, in relation to endoscopic competency, safety or patient satisfaction, all studies had major methodological limitations. Patients were often not randomized (21/26 studies) and not appropriately controlled. In relation to cost-efficiency, nurse endoscopists were less cost-effective per procedure at year 1 when compared to services provided by physicians, due largely to the increased need for subsequent endoscopies, specialist follow-up and primary care consultations.

CONCLUSION: Contrary to general beliefs, endoscopic services provided by nurse endoscopists are not more cost effective compared to standard service models and evidence suggests the opposite. Overall significant shortcomings and biases limit the validity and generalizability of studies that have explored safety and quality of services delivered by non-medical endoscopists.

Learning curves for EUS by using cumulative sum analysis: implications for American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations for training

BACKGROUND

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endsocopy (ASGE) guidelines for assessing minimal competence in EUS are based on expert opinion and retrospective studies.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively define learning curves in EUS among advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs).

DESIGN

Prospective trial.

SETTING

Three tertiary-care referral centers.

PATIENTS

AETs with no prior EUS experience.

INTERVENTION

AETs were evaluated by attending endosonographers at intervals of 10 EUS examinations (beginning at the 25th examination) during a 12-month training period. A standardized data collection form was used to grade examination of EUS anatomic stations and, when applicable, lesion of interest, accurate uTNM staging, wall layer origin of subepithelial lesions, and technical success with FNA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cumulative sum analysis was applied to assess competency and produce a learning curve for each trainee for overall performance and for each anatomic station. Acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 10% and 20%, respectively, were used.

RESULTS

Five AETs were included, with a total of 1412 EUS examinations (AET1-225, T2-175, T3-402, T4-315, T5-295). Two AETs crossed the threshold for acceptable performance at cases number 255 and 295, two AETs showed a trend toward acceptable performance after 225 and 196 cases but needed ongoing training, and 1 AET demonstrated the need for ongoing training after 402 cases. Similar variable results were noted for individual stations.

LIMITATIONS

Results from this study may not be generalizable to other centers' AETs.

CONCLUSION

We observed substantial variability in achieving competency and a consistent need for more supervision in all AETs than current recommendations (150 cases). Future studies should focus on standardization of trainee performance, definition of competency, and widespread applicability of AET evaluation.

Training in EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Attending Supervised, Trainee-Directed FNA from the Onset of Training

Background. The optimal time to initiate hands-on training in endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is unclear. We studied the feasibility of initiating EUS-FNA training concurrent with EUS training. Methods. Three supervised trainees were instructed on EUS-FNA technique and allowed hands-on exposure from the onset of training. The trainee and attending each performed passes in no particular order. During trainee FNA, the attending provided verbal instruction as needed but no hands-on assistance. A blinded cytopathologist assessed the adequacy (cellularity) and diagnostic yield of individual passes. Primary outcomes compared cellularity and diagnostic yield of attending versus fellow FNA passes. Results. We analyzed 305 FNA sites, including pancreas (51.2%), mediastinal/upper abdominal lymph node (LN) (28.5%) and others (20.3%). The average proportion of fellow passes with AC was similar to attending FNA-pancreas: 70.3 versus 68.8%; LN: 79.0 versus 81.7%; others 65.5 versus 68.7%; P > 0.05); these did not change significantly during the training period. Among cases with confirmed malignancy (n = 179), the sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 78.8% (68.4% fellow-only versus 69.6% attending only). There were no EUS-FNA complications. Conclusions. When initiated at the onset of EUS training, attending-supervised, trainee-directed FNA is safe and has comparable performance characteristics to attending FNA.

Service provision and training for endoscopic ultrasound in the UK

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a standard procedure that plays an important role in the management of both malignant and benign disease. The development of EUS services in the UK has been haphazard and training inconsistent. The British Society of Gastroenterology has charged a working group with the task of laying down a national framework for how such services might be commissioned, structured and regulated; with particular attention to defining how endoscopist skills might be acquired, assessed and maintained. This report lays out a map for this process and its future revision.

Clinicians' attitudes towards endoscopic ultrasound: a survey of four European countries

OBJECTIVE

Despite the documented effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in research studies, data on the utilization of this technology in clinical practice are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess EUS availability and accessibility as well as EUS utilization among clinicians from different European countries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A direct mail survey was sent to members of the national gastroenterological associations in Sweden, Norway, Greece, and the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Out of 2361 clinicians with valid addresses, 593 (25.1%) responded. Overall, EUS was available to 43% of clinicians within their practice but availability varied from 23% in Greece to 56% in the United Kingdom. More than 50% of respondents evaluating patients with esophageal cancer, rectal cancer, or pancreaticobiliary disorders had utilized EUS during the previous year, but utilization varied considerably among different countries, being more frequent in the United Kingdom. In logistic regression analyses, factors independently related to EUS utilization were mainly EUS availability and accessibility as well as perceived utility of EUS (p <0.05 for all). Respondents considered the lack of trained endosonographers (79%) and high cost (52%) as the main barriers to wider EUS use.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of responding clinicians use EUS but overall utilization varies considerably among different countries. There is considerable variation in EUS service availability and accessibility among countries which, together with perceived usefulness of EUS, is a major determinant of EUS utilization. A shortage of trained endosonographers and the high cost are major barriers to wider EUS use. The findings of this study might help to define policies aimed at development of EUS services.

Training for NOTES

The foundation of skills for the performance of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) lies in the training for general surgery (especially laparoscopy) and flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy. Physicians wishing to practice NOTES need to acquire or have both skill sets, or need to partner together to blend complementary capabilities with colleagues. In the future, however, a new cadre of NOTES specialists may emerge who will have developed individual expertise in the full spectrum of NOTES knowledge base requirements. This article highlights a body of knowledge and skills needed to become a NOTES proceduralist and review the current training paradigms for gastrointestinal endoscopists and surgeons.

Nurses working in GI and endoscopic practice: a review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 10 years, nurses increasingly perform tasks and procedures that were previously performed by physicians.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we investigated what types of GI care and endoscopic procedures nurses presently perform and reviewed the available evidence regarding the benefits of these activities.

DESIGN

Review of published articles on nurses' involvement in GI and endoscopic practice.

RESULTS

In total, 19 studies were identified that evaluated performance and participation of nurses in GI and endoscopic practice. Of these, 3 were randomized trials on the performance of nurses in flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 2) and upper endoscopy (n = 1). Fourteen nonrandomized studies evaluated performance in upper endoscopy (n = 2), EUS (n = 1), flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 7), capsule endoscopy (n = 2), and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement (n = 2). In all studies, it was found that nurses accurately and safely performed these procedures. Two further studies demonstrated that nurses adequately managed follow-up of patients with Barrett's esophagus and inflammatory bowel disease. Four of the 19 studies showed that patients were satisfied with the type of care nurses provided. Finally, it was suggested that costs were reduced if nurses performed a sigmoidoscopy and evaluated capsule endoscopy examinations compared with physicians performing these activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review support the involvement of nurses in diagnostic endoscopy and follow-up of patients with chronic GI disorders. Further randomized trials, however, are needed to demonstrate whether this involvement compares at least as favorably with gastroenterologists in terms of medical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and costs.

Can U.S. GI fellowship programs meet American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations for training in EUS? A survey of U.S. GI fellowship program directors

BACKGROUND

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) EUS training and credentialing guidelines exist, but the capability of U.S. GI fellowships to meet these guidelines has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the capability of U.S. GI fellowship programs to meet ASGE guidelines for EUS training in the context of 3-year and advanced GI fellowships.

METHODS

U.S. GI fellowship programs were surveyed for the presence or the absence, type, and extent of EUS training. Demographics regarding the programs and the program directors were obtained.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Data on the annual total EUS volume and data on EUS performed by 3-year and/or advanced-year fellows were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Ninety-one of 142 contactable GI programs responded (64%); 72% of programs performed >200 EUS/y and thus could train >or=1 EUS trainee/y. For 3-year GI fellows, 55% received less than 3 months of training, with 43% not receiving actual "hands-on" EUS experience, and 61% not learning EUS-guided FNA. The median EUS performed by 3-year fellows was 50 (0-350). Programs that offer advanced endoscopy fellowship had a median advanced-trainee EUS volume of 200 procedures (range, 50-1100 procedures). Of advanced fellows, 20% failed to receive "hands-on" training and 52% performed <200 procedures. We observed a significant difference in the median EUS volume performed by 3-year versus advanced-year fellows (P<.001). Program director variables did not correlate with training EUS volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of U.S. GI fellowship programs have established the EUS volume to train at least 1 EUS fellow, per ASGE guidelines; however, most 3-year and many advanced fellows are currently receiving insufficient EUS training.

EUS training and practice patterns among gastroenterologists completing training since 1993

BACKGROUND

EUS training and practice patterns vary widely. The aim of this study was to assess EUS training methods, volumes, and practice patterns, and to obtain subjective assessment of endoscopic competence from endosonographers.

METHODS

A survey was sent to over 1400 U.S. and international gastroenterologists who completed training since 1993. We assessed demographics, whether EUS is performed, how EUS training was obtained, and volume and type of EUS procedures performed in training and at present. Subjective assessment of adequacy of training was also obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 157 physicians responded, including 76 EUS performers, of whom 67% completed advanced endoscopy fellowship, 14% were EUS trained during GI fellowship, and 19% learned via other means. EUS performers were subgrouped into those who had and had not completed advanced endoscopy fellowship, and those within and outside of an academic practice. There were significant associations between the number of upper EUS, pancreaticobiliary, and EUS-guided FNAs performed during training (p < 0.001 for all 3 groups) and completion of advanced endoscopy fellowship. Physicians in academic practice performed more EUS and FNAs per month than physicians in other types of practice (p values <0.001 and 0.001, respectively); 93.3% of respondents felt they received adequate instruction in diagnostic EUS, regardless of type of training; 88.9% of EUS performers felt they received adequate instruction in performing FNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Most EUS performers are in academic practice. Those with advanced training obtained higher training volumes and perform higher volumes of EUS. The majority of respondents felt well trained regardless of training type and the number of procedures performed during training. This is the first analysis to assess these aspects of EUS training and practice.