Evaluating changes in gastrointestinal endoscopy training over 5 years: closing the audit loop

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.

Colonoscopy Trainers Experience Greater Stress During Insertion than Withdrawal: Implications for Endoscopic Curricula

Background

Optimal colonoscopy training curricula should minimize stress and cognitive load. This study aimed to determine whether withdrawal or insertion colonoscopy skills training is associated with less stress or cognitive load for trainees or trainers.

Methods

In Phase I, participants were randomized to train on either insertion or withdrawal in a simulated environment. In Phase II, participants were randomized to begin with either insertion or withdrawal in patient encounters. Salivary cortisol levels, heart rate, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) surveys were used to assess stress in trainees and trainers. NASA Task Load Index (TLX) survey was used to assess cognitive workload in trainees.

Results

In Phase I, trainee stress increased during the simulation training during both withdrawal and insertion compared to baseline, while trainer stress changed minimally. Cognitive load was higher for trainees during withdrawal (P = 0.005). In Phase II, trainers’ STAI scores were greater during insertion training (P = 0.013). Trainees’ stress was highest prior to beginning patient training and decreased during training, while trainer’s stress increased during training. Trainees reported insertion training being of greater value (70.0%), while trainers reported withdrawal was preferred (77.8%).

Conclusion

Trainees and trainers exhibit important differences in stress during colonoscopy skills training. Trainees reported more stress during simulation training and greatest cognitive load during simulation withdrawal, whereas trainers reported greatest stress during patient encounters, particularly training of insertion techniques. Attention to the effect of stress on trainees and trainers and the drivers of stress is warranted and could be incorporated in competency based medical education.

Assessing the Quality of Polypectomy and Teaching Polypectomy

Ineffective polypectomy technique may lead to incomplete polyp resection, high complication rates, interval colorectal cancer, and costly referral to surgery. Despite its central importance to endoscopy, training in polypectomy is not standardized nor has the most effective training approach been defined. Polypectomy competence is rarely reported and quality metrics for this skill are lacking. Use of tools and measurements to assess polypectomy outcomes is low. There is a need for standardization of training and remediation in polypectomy; defining standards of competent polypectomy and how it is feasibly measured; and integration of polypectomy quality metrics into training programs and the accreditation process.

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.

The impact of the introduction of formalised polypectomy assessment on training in the UK

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to describe the impact on polypectomy experience by the mandatory introduction of the Directly Observed Polypectomy Skills tool (DOPyS) and electronic portfolio as part of the formal colonoscopy certification process.

DESIGN

Applications for colonoscopy certification in the UK in the year prior to the introduction of DOPyS were analysed retrospectively and compared with data collected prospectively for those in the following year.

SETTING

UK National Health Service.

PATIENTS

None.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes studied included whether evidence of exposure to polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and colonoscopy changed over the 2-year period. The nature of the polyps removed by trainees was also studied.

RESULTS

Thirty two per cent of candidates in the first year had evidence of any observed polypectomy with 7% of candidates referring to training in EMR. The median number of formative colonoscopy assessments was 3 (range 0-16). All of these candidates in the second year had evidence of polypectomy assessment, with a median number of DOPyS of 7 (range 3-27). Eighty nine per cent of applicants had evidence of assessed EMR. The median number of formative colonoscopy assessments in this cohort was 32 (range 9-199). There was a significant increase in the number of logged polypectomy assessments (p<0.001), experience of EMR (p<0.001) and formative colonoscopy assessments (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the total number of colonoscopy procedures performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured polypectomy assessment improves trainees' documented exposure to therapeutic endoscopy as well as providing formal evidence of skills acquisition. As polypectomy plays an increasing role globally in colorectal cancer prevention, the DOPyS provides an effective means of assessing and certifying polypectomy.

Interval Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy: Exploring Explanations and Solutions

There is good evidence that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been successful at reducing both CRC incidence and death. Colonoscopy, utilized as either a primary screening tool or a follow-up exam when other screening tests are positive, has significantly contributed to these encouraging trends. However, it is well recognized that colonoscopy is not perfectly sensitive for the detection of neoplasia and that CRC can be diagnosed within a short interval following a colonoscopy that did not detect one. The literature surrounding these cases has rapidly expanded over the last decade. Specifically, studies aimed at understanding the frequency of these events and the likely explanations for their occurrence have been performed. This review will highlight current knowledge around the epidemiology of interval post colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The common explanations for these cancers including missed lesions, new lesions, and incompletely resected lesions will be reviewed and their contribution to interval PCCRC estimated. Finally, the relationship of these putative explanations to potential opportunities to prevent interval PCCRC will be explored. Current approaches to prevention largely center on consistent adherence to quality colonoscopy standards. Future approaches include advances in technology to better visualize the colon and adequately resect detected neoplasia. Finally, improvement in training as well as development of a culture of continuous quality improvement will be essential to maximize the benefits of colonoscopy in daily clinical practice.

Effectiveness, training and quality assurance of colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer

Screening for colorectal cancer has been proven to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. While the precise benefit of screening exclusively by colonoscopy is not yet known, unarguably, the exam is central to the success of any screening programme. The test affords the opportunity to detect and resect neoplasia across the entire large bowel and is the definitive examination when other screening tests are positive. However, colonoscopy is invasive and often requires sedation as well as extensive bowel preparation, all of which puts the patient at risk. Furthermore, the test can technically be demanding and, unarguably, there is variation in how it is performed. This variation in performance has now been definitively linked to important outcome measures. For example, interval cancers are more common in low adenoma detectors as compared with high adenoma detectors. This review outlines the most current thinking regarding the effectiveness of colonoscopy as a screening tool. It also outlines key concepts to optimise its performance through robust quality assurance programmes and high-quality training.

Quality in colonoscopy: European perspectives and practice

Colonoscopy is the 'gold standard' investigation of the colon. High quality colonoscopy is essential to diagnose early cancer and reduce its incidence through the detection and removal of pre-malignant adenomas. In this review, we discuss the key components of a high quality colonoscopy, review methods for improving quality, emerging technologies that have the potential to improve quality and highlight areas for future work.

Surgical endoscopy training: the Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal endoscopy national review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopy performance is dependent on the technical ability and experience of the operator. There is anxiety among surgical trainees that certification to perform independent endoscopy to agreed national standards by the date of award of certificate of completion of training is not achievable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the delivery of endoscopy training to UK-based general surgery trainees.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic survey of general surgery trainees holding a national training number or in a locum appointment to training post between July and September 2010 was undertaken.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-three trainees responded from all UK training regions. Stated subspeciality interests included coloproctology (47%), oesophagogastric/bariatric (22%) and hepatobiliary/pancreatic (10%) general surgery. 92% of trainees were training or planned to train in endoscopy, 62% of whom had registered with the Joint Advisory Group (JAG). Thirteen trainees had JAG certification in diagnostic upper GI endoscopy and eight in colonoscopy. There were high rates of dissatisfaction with endoscopy training nationally. Two thirds of trainees had no scheduled training lists. Conflicting elective/emergency commitments, competition and absence of training lists were the most common reasons for a failure to access endoscopy training.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher surgical trainees are failing to achieve national standards for endoscopy practice. There is an urgent need to address the deficiencies in endoscopy training to ensure a competent cohort of surgical endoscopists.

Validation of a novel method for assessing competency in polypectomy

BACKGROUND

There is a gap in the formal assessment of technical skills in polypectomy that is now considered an integral part of colonoscopy. Polypectomy has been shown to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer but does have associated complications. Polypectomy competency assessment should arguably be a part of the certification process for all endoscopists. A polypectomy competency assessment tool (Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills [DOPyS]) has been developed and its reliability examined. This study examined the ability of the DOPyS to reliably distinguish between endoscopists with different levels of experience, ie, its construct validity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the construct validity of the DOPyS.

DESIGN

Videos of 32 polypectomies (endoscopic view only) were collected from 2 expert (> 1000 colonoscopies) endoscopists (17 polyps) and 6 intermediate-level (100-500 colonoscopies) endoscopists (15 polyps). The videos were edited to include only the entire polypectomy procedure, arranged in random order, and assessed blindly by 4 experienced endoscopists, only 2 of whom were familiar with polypectomy assessment by using the DOPyS before scoring. The differences in overall competency scores (range 1-4; competency, scores ≥ 3) for the expert and intermediate groups were compared by using the Fisher exact test.

SETTING

Single center.

RESULTS

The analysis suggested that both trained assessors familiar with the DOPyS could reliably distinguish between the expert and intermediate endoscopists (P = .049 and P < .001), with the expert group scoring higher than the intermediate one. For the assessors with no previous experience of the DOPyS, no such difference could be seen (P = .71 and P = .15).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample and polyp size.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the analysis suggested that the DOPyS could reliably differentiate between polypectomies performed by endoscopists of different levels of experience, but only if the assessors were trained in the use of the assessment tool. Training is therefore required to use this tool reliably.

Quality assurance of training

Over the last decade there have been significant improvements in the standards of training across both the UK and US. Improvements in the UK have been catalysed by the need for high quality colonoscopy within the bowel cancer screening programme. In both the UK and US, central organisations now oversee the quality of endoscopic training and ensure that training standards are being met. Improvements in patient care are at the centre of quality assurance of training. Better training results in better doctors who provide better care for patients resulting in better patient outcomes.