The effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on novices: a systematic review

Body donor reperfusion and re-ventilation in medical training: an Italian study testing SimLife®

Background

Medical simulations have emerged as a valuable tool in anatomical-medical training, allowing healthcare professionals to gain hands-on experience in a controlled and safe environment. One such simulation platform is SimLife®, which uses the Pulse for Practice (P4P) system to enable realistic restoration of airflow ("re-ventilation") and blood flow ("revascularization") in bodies donated to science.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of introducing SimLife® technology in Italy. Additionally, it assessed the impact of this technology across various medical specialties, utilizing a minimal number of donated bodies.

Methods

The study utilized the existing body donation program and dissection rooms at the Anatomy Center of the University of Bologna. 62 participants from 13 medical specialties performed simulations using the SimLife® P4P platform. Post-simulation, structured interviews were used to collect data on the interventions performed, participant perceptions of the technology's usefulness, enjoyment, and willingness to repeat the experience, as well as critical issues encountered.

Results

Key findings include that 86% of participants rated SimLife® technology as extremely useful for post-lauream training, while 84% found it highly beneficial for team-building activities. A total of 31 interventions were successfully performed across various anatomical regions, with participants reporting high satisfaction and a strong willingness to repeat the simulation experience.

Conclusion

The findings support the effectiveness of SimLife® technology for body donor re-ventilation and revascularization, reinforcing its value for medical training across various specialties.

Virtual reality tools for training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an innovative technology in endoscopy training, providing a simulated environment that closely resembles real-life scenarios and offering trainees a valuable platform to acquire and enhance their endoscopic skills. This systematic review will critically evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of VR-based training compared to traditional methods.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of VR-based training compared to traditional methods. By examining the current state of the field, this review seeks to identify gaps, challenges, and opportunities for further research and implemen-tation of VR in endoscopic training.

METHODS

The study is a systematic review, following the guidelines for reporting systematic reviews set out by the PRISMA statement. A comprehensive search command was designed and implemented and run in September 2023 to identify relevant studies available, from electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The results were systematically reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles were included in the final analysis. The total number of participants was 523. Five studies focused on both upper endoscopy and colonoscopy training, two on upper endoscopy training only, eight on colon-oscopy training only, and one on sigmoidoscopy training only. Gastro-intestinal Mentor virtual endoscopy simulator was commonly used. Fifteen reported positive results, indicating that VR-based training was feasible and acceptable for endoscopy learners. VR technology helped the trainees enhance their skills in manipulating the endoscope, reducing the procedure time or increasing the technical accuracy, in VR scenarios and real patients. Some studies show that the patient discomfort level decreased significantly. However, some studies show there were no significant differences in patient discomfort and pain scores between VR group and other groups.

CONCLUSION

VR training is effective for endoscopy training. There are several well-designed randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes, proving the potential of this innovative tool. Thus, VR should be more widely adopted in endoscopy training. Furthermore, combining VR training with conventional methods could be a promising approach that should be implemented in training.

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.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

METHODS

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

RESULTS

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

CONCLUSION

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

RESULTS

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

CONCLUSION

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Simulator-based training method in gastrointestinal endoscopy training and currently available simulators

The apprenticeship-based training method (ABTM) is highly effective for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic training. However, the conventional ABTM has significant issues. Although many supplementary training methods (TMs) have been developed and utilized, they cannot entirely replace the ABTM, which remains the major TM strategy. Currently, new TM construction is crucial and necessary due to financial constraints, difficulty of obtaining sufficient training time due to patient safety-related regulations, and catastrophic damage caused by disasters such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The simulator-based TM (SBTM) is widely accepted as an alternative to the ABTM, owing to the SBTM's advantages. Since the 1960s, many GI endoscopy training simulators have been developed and numerous studies have been published on their effectiveness. While previous studies have focused on the simulator's validity, this review focused on the accessibility of simulators that were introduced by the end of 2021. Although the current SBTM is effective in GI endoscopic education, extensive improvements are needed to replace the ABTM. Incorporating simulator-incorporated TMs into an improved ABTM is an attempt to overcome the incompleteness of the current SBTM. Until a new simulator is developed to replace the ABTM, it is desirable to operate a simulator-integrated and well-coordinated TM that is suitable for each country and institution.

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.

Digital Education for Health Professionals: An Evidence Map, Conceptual Framework, and Research Agenda

BACKGROUND

Health professions education has undergone major changes with the advent and adoption of digital technologies worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to map the existing evidence and identify gaps and research priorities to enable robust and relevant research in digital health professions education.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews on the digital education of practicing and student health care professionals. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Educational Research Information Center, CINAHL, and gray literature sources from January 2014 to July 2020. A total of 2 authors independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and synthesized the findings. We outlined the key characteristics of the included reviews, the quality of the evidence they synthesized, and recommendations for future research. We mapped the empirical findings and research recommendations against the newly developed conceptual framework.

RESULTS

We identified 77 eligible systematic reviews. All of them included experimental studies and evaluated the effectiveness of digital education interventions in different health care disciplines or different digital education modalities. Most reviews included studies on various digital education modalities (22/77, 29%), virtual reality (19/77, 25%), and online education (10/77, 13%). Most reviews focused on health professions education in general (36/77, 47%), surgery (13/77, 17%), and nursing (11/77, 14%). The reviews mainly assessed participants' skills (51/77, 66%) and knowledge (49/77, 64%) and included data from high-income countries (53/77, 69%). Our novel conceptual framework of digital health professions education comprises 6 key domains (context, infrastructure, education, learners, research, and quality improvement) and 16 subdomains. Finally, we identified 61 unique questions for future research in these reviews; these mapped to framework domains of education (29/61, 47% recommendations), context (17/61, 28% recommendations), infrastructure (9/61, 15% recommendations), learners (3/61, 5% recommendations), and research (3/61, 5% recommendations).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a large number of research questions regarding digital education, which collectively reflect a diverse and comprehensive research agenda. Our conceptual framework will help educators and researchers plan, develop, and study digital education. More evidence from low- and middle-income countries is needed.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Training and quality assurance in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is important to ensure competent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for OGD training and certification.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on OGD training and certification were formulated following literature review and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were incorporated into the updated certification pathway.

RESULTS

In total, 32 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (4 statements), acquisition of competence (12 statements), assessment of competence (10 statements) and post-certification support (6 statements). The consensus process led to following certification criteria: (1) performing ≥250 hands-on procedures; (2) attending a JAG-accredited basic skills course; (3) attainment of relevant minimal performance standards defined by British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, (4) achieving physically unassisted D2 intubation and J-manoeuvre in ≥95% of recent procedures, (5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills assessments.

CONCLUSION

The JAG standards for diagnostic OGD have been updated following evidence-based consensus. These standards are intended to support training, improve competency assessment to uphold standards of practice and provide support to the newly-independent practitioner.

Defining medical simulators for simulation-based education in EUS: Theoretical approach and a narrative review

Choosing the right simulator for tasks in simulation-based education in medicine will affect the trainees’ skills. However, there is a shortage in the vocabularies used for describing medical simulators and the contextual usage of simulators. We propose methods for approaching the task of choosing and defining the simulators needed, regardless of it being an acquisition or development process. It is advocated that efforts are made in defining the simulator's requirements before making any choice in regards to development processes. Multiple advantages are attained by keeping the simulator simple, both educational and development wise. Issues on validating simulators are discussed and highlighted as actions where interprofessional communication is likely to fail. The following conventional terms in medical education are problematic in regard to establishing a clear communication: Virtual reality, fidelity, validation, and simulation. The text is finalized in a short discussion on applying the methods in an EUS/endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) context. The work is the authors’ interpretation of an invitation having the title “Development of EUS and EBUS training models and simulators.”

Colonic displacement as a marker of endoscopic skill: development of a novel tool for endoscopy training

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a technically challenging procedure. The colonoscope is prone to forming loops in the colon, which can lead patient discomfort and even perforation. We hypothesized that expert endoscopists use techniques to avoid loop formation, identify and straighten loops earlier, and thus exert less force.

METHODS

Using a commercially available physical colon simulator model (Kyoto Kagaku), electromagnetic tracking markers (NDI Medical) were placed along the mobile segments of the colon (sigmoid, transverse) to measure the degree of displacement of the colon as the scope was advanced to the cecum. The colon model was set for each participant to simulate a redundant alpha loop in the sigmoid colon. Gastroenterology and surgical trainees and attendings were assessed. Demographic data were collected for each participant.

RESULTS

Seventy-five participants were enrolled in the study. There were 17 (22.7%) attending physicians, and 58 (77.3%) trainees. Attending physicians advanced the scope to the cecum faster. The mean time required for procedure completion was 360.5 s compared to 178.4 s for the trainee and attending groups respectively (mean difference: 182.1 s, 95% CI: 93.0, 269.7; p = 0.0002). Attending physicians exerted significantly lower mean colonic displacement than trainees. The mean colonic displacement was 79.8 mm for the trainee group and 57.9 mm for the attending group (mean difference: 21.9 mm, 95% CI: 2.6, 41.2; p = 0.04). Those who used torque steering caused lower maximum colonic displacement than those who used knob steering.

CONCLUSION

Attending physicians advance the scope during colonoscopy in a manner that results in significantly less colonic displacement than resident trainees. Although prior studies have shown a difference in force application between endoscopists and inexperienced students, ours is the first to differentiate across varying degrees of endoscopic skill. Future studies will define metrics for incorporation into endoscopic training curricula, focusing on techniques that encourage safety and comfort for patients.

Impact of a simulation-based induction programme in gastroscopy on trainee outcomes and learning curves

BACKGROUND

Pre-clinical simulation-based training (SBT) in endoscopy has been shown to augment trainee performance in the short-term, but longer-term data are lacking.

AIM

To assess the impact of a two-day gastroscopy induction course combining theory and SBT (Structured PRogramme of INduction and Training – SPRINT) on trainee outcomes over a 16-mo period.

METHODS

This prospective case-control study compared outcomes between novice SPRINT attendees and controls matched from a United Kingdom training database. Study outcomes comprised: (1) Unassisted D2 intubation rates; (2) Procedural discomfort scores; (3) Sedation practice; (4) Time to 200 procedures; and (5) Time to certification.

RESULTS

Total 15 cases and 24 controls were included, with mean procedure counts of 10 and 3 (P = 0.739) pre-SPRINT. Post-SPRINT, no significant differences between the groups were detected in long-term D2 intubation rates (P = 0.332) or discomfort scores (P = 0.090). However, the cases had a significantly higher rate of unsedated procedures than controls post-SPRINT (58% vs 44%, P = 0.018), which was maintained over the subsequent 200 procedures. Cases tended to perform procedures at a greater frequency than controls in the post-SPRINT period (median: 16.2 vs 13.8 per mo, P = 0.051), resulting in a significantly greater proportion of cases achieving gastroscopy certification by the end of follow up (75% vs 36%, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, attendees of the SPRINT cohort tended to perform more procedures and achieved gastroscopy certification earlier than controls. These data support the role for wider evaluation of pre-clinical induction involving SBT.

ASGE EndoVators Summit: simulators and the future of endoscopic training

Interest in the use of simulation for acquiring, maintaining, and assessing skills in GI endoscopy has grown over the past decade, as evidenced by recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines encouraging the use of endoscopy simulation training and its incorporation into training standards by a key accreditation organization. An EndoVators Summit, partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health, (NIH) was held at the ASGE Institute for Training and Technology from November 19 to 20, 2017. The summit brought together over 70 thought leaders in simulation research and simulator development and key decision makers from industry. Proceedings opened with a historical review of the role of simulation in medicine and an outline of priority areas related to the emerging role of simulation training within medicine broadly. Subsequent sessions addressed the summit's purposes: to review the current state of endoscopy simulation and the role it could play in endoscopic training, to define the role and value of simulators in the future of endoscopic training and to reach consensus regarding priority areas for simulation-related education and research and simulator development. This white paper provides an overview of the central points raised by presenters, synthesizes the discussions on the key issues under consideration, and outlines actionable items and/or areas of consensus reached by summit participants and society leadership pertinent to each session. The goal was to provide a working roadmap for the developers of simulators, the investigators who strive to define the optimal use of endoscopy-related simulation and assess its impact on educational outcomes and health care quality, and the educators who seek to enhance integration of simulation into training and practice.

Simulation in endoscopy: Practical educational strategies to improve learning

In gastrointestinal endoscopy, simulation-based training can help endoscopists acquire new skills and accelerate the learning curve. Simulation creates an ideal environment for trainees, where they can practice specific skills, perform cases at their own pace, and make mistakes with no risk to patients. Educators also benefit from the use of simulators, as they can structure training according to learner needs and focus solely on the trainee. Not all simulation-based training, however, is effective. To maximize benefits from this instructional modality, educators must be conscious of learners' needs, the potential benefits of training, and associated costs. Simulation should be integrated into training in a manner that is grounded in educational theory and empirical data. In this review, we focus on four best practices in simulation-based education: deliberate practice with mastery learning, feedback and debriefing, contextual learning, and innovative educational strategies. For each topic, we provide definitions, supporting evidence, and practical tips for implementation.

A task and performance analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) surgery

BACKGROUND

ESD is an endoscopic technique for en bloc resection of gastrointestinal lesions. ESD is a widely-used in Japan and throughout Asia, but not as prevalent in Europe or the US. The procedure is technically challenging and has higher adverse events (bleeding, perforation) compared to endoscopic mucosal resection. Inadequate training platforms and lack of established training curricula have restricted its wide acceptance in the US. Thus, we aim to develop a Virtual Endoluminal Surgery Simulator (VESS) for objective ESD training and assessment. In this work, we performed task and performance analysis of ESD surgeries.

METHODS

We performed a detailed colorectal ESD task analysis and identified the critical ESD steps for lesion identification, marking, injection, circumferential cutting, dissection, intraprocedural complication management, and post-procedure examination. We constructed a hierarchical task tree that elaborates the order of tasks in these steps. Furthermore, we developed quantitative ESD performance metrics. We measured task times and scores of 16 ESD surgeries performed by four different endoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

The average time of the marking, injection, and circumferential cutting phases are 203.4 (σ: 205.46), 83.5 (σ: 49.92), 908.4 s. (σ: 584.53), respectively. Cutting the submucosal layer takes most of the time of overall ESD procedure time with an average of 1394.7 s (σ: 908.43). We also performed correlation analysis (Pearson's test) among the performance scores of the tasks. There is a moderate positive correlation (R = 0.528, p = 0.0355) between marking scores and total scores, a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7879, p = 0.0003) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and total scores. Similarly, we noted a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7095, p = 0.0021) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and marking scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We elaborated ESD tasks and developed quantitative performance metrics used in analysis of actual surgery performance. These ESD metrics will be used in future validation studies of our VESS simulator.

Efficacy of a Three-Dimensional-Printed Training Simulator for Endoscopic Biopsy in the Stomach

Background/Aims

We used three-dimensional (3D) printing technology to create a new biopsy simulator for the stomach and investigated its efficacy and realism in endoscopic biopsy training.

Methods

A novel stomach biopsy simulator, with 10 biopsy sites, was produced using a 3D printer. We enrolled 26 participants, including 10 residents, six first-year fellows, five second-year fellows, and five faculty members. We recorded and reviewed five training sessions and evaluated the simulator with questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale.

Results

The mean completion time (seconds) was 244.8±11.5 for the residents, 107.9±33.4 for the first-year fellows, 106.8±20.1 for the second-year fellows, and 103.8±19.2 for the faculty members. The completion time became shorter with repetition and was significantly lower for residents by the fifth trial (first trial, 347.0±159.5; fifth trial, 169.6±57.7; p=0.007). The faculty members strongly agreed that the simulator realistically reflected endoscopic handling and was reasonable for endoscopic training (scores of 6.2±0.8 and 6.4±0.9, respectively). Importantly, experienced endoscopists reported that the difficulty levels of the 10 biopsy sites in the simulator were a realistic match for the actual stomach.

Conclusions

This endoscopic biopsy simulator created using a 3D printer is a realistic and useful method to improve the biopsy skills of trainee endoscopists.

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.

Training in Endoscopy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Progress towards the goal of high-quality endoscopy across health economies has been founded on high-quality structured training programmes linked to credentialing practice and ongoing performance monitoring. This review appraises the recent literature on training interventions, which may benefit performance and competency acquisition in novice endoscopy trainees.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing data on the learning curves for different endoscopic procedures has highlighted variations in performance amongst trainees. These differences may be dependent on the trainee, trainer and training programme. Evidence of the benefit of knowledge-based training, simulation training, hands-on courses and clinical training is available to inform the planning of ideal training pathway elements. The validation of performance assessment measures and global competency tools now also provides evidence on the effectiveness of training programmes to influence the learning curve. The impact of technological advances and intelligent metrics from national databases is also predicted to drive improvements and efficiencies in training programme design and monitoring of post-training outcomes. Training in endoscopy may be augmented through a series of pre-training and in-training interventions. In conjunction with performance metrics, these evidence-based interventions could be implemented into training pathways to optimise and quality assure training in endoscopy.

Simulator training in gastrointestinal endoscopy - From basic training to advanced endoscopic procedures

Simulator-based gastrointestinal endoscopy training has gained acceptance over the last decades and has been extensively studied. Several types of simulators have been validated and it has been demonstrated that the use of simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning curve in acquiring basic skills. Current GI endoscopy simulators lack the degree of realism that would be necessary to provide training to achieve full competency or to be applicable in certification. Virtual Reality and mechanical simulators are commonly used in basic flexible endoscopy training, whereas ex vivo and in vivo models are used in training the most advanced endoscopic procedures. Validated models for the training of more routine therapeutic interventions like polypectomy, EMR, stenting and haemostasis are lacking or scarce and developments in these areas should be encouraged.

Training methods and models for colonoscopic insertion, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection

Colonoscopic examination is considered an effective examination for the detection of colorectal cancers. Additionally, early colorectal cancers can be resected using endoscopic techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. However, those examinations and treatments need special techniques. Various training methods are practiced to acquire such endoscopic techniques throughout the world. In clinical cases, magnetic positioning devices help endoscopic insertion by less experienced endoscopists. There is a physical model made by polyvinyl chloride and a virtual simulator for training of colonoscopic insertion. Various techniques including a method to apply pressure to the abdomen and consideration for patient's pain can be trained using these models. In view of extensive training of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, animal models are useful and actually used. Live animal models of minipig, which entails blood flow, are ideal and used frequently, but are cumbersome to prepare. On the other hand, ex vivo animal models using intestine of porcine and bovine are convenient for preparation and less expensive. Unique ex vivo animal models with blood flow have been developed recently and techniques for hemostasis can be practiced. With respect to a method of training for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection, a stepwise system has been adopted throughout the world. Thus, first they observe the expert's technique, then practice training of animal models, and finally, they perform clinical rectal cases. The system is useful for a safe and definite procedure. In this review, we reveal various training methods for colonoscopic examinations and treatments.

European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition syllabus for subspecialty training: moving towards a European standard

The requirements for and conditions of subspecialty training in paediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition (PGHN) are rather variable across European countries. The European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) agreed on a training syllabus aimed to foster a harmonised European PGHN curriculum and to support national PGHN societies and governmental bodies to promote and establish high-quality training programmes and levels of certification in the field. The document provides PGHN training prerequisites and objectives and the basic knowledge elements to acquire the clinical, technical, and management skills needed. Guidelines and instruments for self-monitoring and appraisal are proposed, and a logbook is available online. These training standards are a first step towards a European certification and recognition as a specialist in PGHN.