Colonoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Assessment Tool for Evaluating Competency Development During Training

Application of direct observation of operational skills in nursing skill evaluation of pressure injury: A randomized clinical trial

This was a non-blinded, single-centre, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compared the effectiveness of direct observation of procedural skills (DOPSs)with traditional assessment methods in pressure injury (PI) care skills. The study population included 82 nursing professionals randomly assigned to the study group (n = 41) and the control group (n = 41). Both groups of nurses underwent a 6-month training in PI care skills and were subsequently evaluated. The main outcome variables were the PI skill operation scores and theoretical scores. Secondary outcome variables included satisfaction and critical thinking abilities. Independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess differences between the two groups of nurses. The results showed no statistically significant difference in PI skill operation scores between the two groups of nurses (p > 0.05). When comparing the PI theoretical scores, the study group scored higher than the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). In terms of satisfaction assessment, the study group and the control group showed differences in improving self-directed learning, enhancing communication skills with patients, improving learning outcomes and increasing flexibility in clinical application (p < 0.05). When comparing critical thinking abilities between the two groups of nurses, there was no statistically significant difference at the beginning of the training, but after 3 months following the training, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.01).The results indicated that the DOPS was effective in improving PI theoretical scores, increasing nurse satisfaction with the training and enhancing critical thinking abilities among nurses.

Outcome of Water Exchange and Air Insufflation Colonoscopy Performed by Supervised Trainee and Their Assessment of the Training Experience

GOALS

The hypotheses that supervised trainees would provide a more favorable assessment of the learning experience and could achieve superior results with water exchange (WE) compared with air insufflation were tested.

BACKGROUND

WE decreased pain, increased cecal intubation rate (CIR), and polyp detection rate (PDR).

STUDY

In a prospective pilot observational study, the trainees were taught WE in unsedated and WE and air insufflation in alternating order in sedated veterans. Trainee scores and procedural outcomes were tracked.

RESULTS

83 air insufflation and 119 WE cases were included. Trainee evaluations of the respective methods were scored based on a 5-point scale [1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree, with lower scores being more favorable]. Evaluation scores [mean (SD)] were as follows: my colonoscopy experience was better than expected: WE 2.02 (1.00) versus air insufflation 2.43 (1.19), P =0.0087; I was confident with my technical skills using this method: WE 2.76 (0.91) versus air insufflation 2.85 (0.87), P =0.4822. Insertion time was 40 (21) min for WE and 30 (20) min for air insufflation ( P =0.0008). CIR were 95% (WE, unsedated); 99% (WE, overall), and 89% (air insufflation, overall). WE showed significantly higher CIR (99% vs. 89%, P =0.0031) and PDR (54% vs. 32%, P =0.0447).

CONCLUSIONS

The long air insufflation insertion time indicated the trainees were inexperienced. The significantly longer WE insertion time confirmed that learning WE required extra time. This pilot study revealed that supervised trainees reported more favorable learning experience with WE and equivalent confidence in technical skills scores. They completed both unsedated and sedated colonoscopy in over 89% of cases achieved significantly higher CIR and PDR with WE than air insufflation. It appeared that trainee education in WE might be an acceptable alternative to augment air insufflation to meet the challenges of training posed by traditional air insufflation colonoscopy.

Impact of ERCP simulator training on early ERCP learning curves of novice trainees: a cohort study

Background and study aim Simulator-based training has been extensively studied in training gastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy and shown to significantly improve learning curves of novices. Data on simulator-based training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are scarce. We aimed to determine the impact of 2-day intensive hands-on simulator training on the course of the learning curve of novice trainees. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study using a validated mechanical ERCP simulator (Boškoski-Costamagna ERCP Trainer). Six trainees were allocated to the simulation course program (SG). Each of these trainees were paired with an endoscopy trainee starting regular ERCP training at the same center who had no exposure to a simulation course program (control group; CG). The course included lectures, live ERCP demonstrations, and hands-on ERCP training to educate trainees in basic techniques related to cannulation, stent placement, stone extraction and stricture management. After the course, both the SG and CG started formal ERCP training in their respective centers. The Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP was used to register each performed ERCP. Simple moving average was applied to create learning curves based on successful common bile duct (CBD) cannulation. Outcomes were plotted against a historical cohort (HC). Results Thirteen trainees were included, six trainees in the SG and seven trainees in the CG, with a total of 717 ERCPs. Mean successful ERCP cannulation rate was higher for the simulator group at baseline compared to both CG and HC, 64% versus 43% and 42%, respectively. Differences became less explicit after 40 ERCPs, but persisted until a median of 75 ERCPs. Conclusions We demonstrate that 2-day hands-on simulator-based ERCP training course has a positive effect on the learning curves of ERCP trainees and should be considered an integral part of the training curricula for ERCP to develop skills prior to patient-based training.

A journey towards pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy and its training: a narrative review

Background and aims

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in pediatric setting has unique features and, therefore, requires an approach that is tailored to pediatric practice. There is still heterogeneity between training programs worldwide in terms of duration, number of procedures and assessment during and at the end of the training process.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review aiming to describe and summarize the existing literature on the various training methods for pediatric GI endoscopy to highlight the significance of specific pediatric endoscopy training.

Results

Simulation-based tools have been implemented in several training programs, providing a safer learning environment for trainees, especially in their earlier stages of training. Assessment of competence is gradually shifting from the sole evaluation of procedural numbers towards the development of more reliable and valid tools that can accurately measure technical competence. Despite such seismic shift, there is still a need for a standardized and comprehensive pediatric-oriented endoscopy curriculum that incorporates acquisition of procedural skills education and is built on the current competency-based model of training. All the above must sink their roots in trainees and to ensure that the endoscopists of tomorrow are capable of delivering high quality of care for children undergoing endoscopy.

Conclusion

It is crucial to parallelly focus on the way trainers teach trainees. In this context, the implementation of "train the trainers" courses has improved important quality meters in GI endoscopy. Future research should put the focus on the potential subsequent favorable benefits of these changes on child health.

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

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

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.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopists and Endoscopists in Training: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with 7 corresponding indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high-quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%).

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN.

Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Use of Generalizability Theory for Exploring Reliability of and Sources of Variance in Assessment of Technical Skills: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Competency-based education relies on the validity and reliability of assessment scores. Generalizability (G) theory is well suited to explore the reliability of assessment tools in medical education but has only been applied to a limited extent. This study aimed to systematically review the literature using G-theory to explore the reliability of structured assessment of medical and surgical technical skills and to assess the relative contributions of different factors to variance.

METHOD

In June 2020, 11 databases, including PubMed, were searched from inception through May 31, 2020. Eligible studies included the use of G-theory to explore reliability in the context of assessment of medical and surgical technical skills. Descriptive information on study, assessment context, assessment protocol, participants being assessed, and G-analyses was extracted. Data were used to map G-theory and explore variance components analyses. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the extracted data on the sources of variance and reliability.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were included; of these, 39 had sufficient data for meta-analysis. The total pool included 35,284 unique assessments of 31,496 unique performances of 4,154 participants. Person variance had a pooled effect of 44.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.8%-51.5%). Only assessment tool type (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills-type vs task-based checklist-type) had a significant effect on person variance. The pooled reliability (G-coefficient) was 0.65 (95% CI, .59-.70). Most studies included decision studies (39, 88.6%) and generally seemed to have higher ratios of performances to assessors to achieve a sufficiently reliable assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

G-theory is increasingly being used to examine reliability of technical skills assessment in medical education, but more rigor in reporting is warranted. Contextual factors can potentially affect variance components and thereby reliability estimates and should be considered, especially in high-stakes assessment. Reliability analysis should be a best practice when developing assessment of technical skills.

Important Quality Metrics and Standardization in Endoscopy

Quality metrics and standardization has become critical as the Affordable Care Act mandates that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services change reimbursement from volume to a value-based system. While the most commonly used quality indicators are related to that of colonoscopy, quality metrics for other procedures and endoscopy units have been developed mainly by the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Data to show that these quality metrics, especially in the field of advanced endoscopy as well as in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, can improve patient outcomes, are anticipated.

The status of training in new technologies in advanced endoscopy: from defining competence to credentialing and privileging

The landscape of advanced endoscopy continues to evolve as new technologies and techniques become available. Although postgraduate advanced endoscopy fellowships have traditionally centered on ERCP and diagnostic EUS, the breadth of training has increased over the years in response to the ever-growing demand for therapeutic endoscopy. The increasing diversity and complexity of emerging endoscopic techniques accompanied by the shift in focus toward competency-based medical education requires innovative changes to the curriculum that will ensure adequate training yet without compromising best patient practices. The purpose of this review is to highlight the expansive array of advanced endoscopic procedures and the challenges of both defining and measuring competence during training. All authors are interventional endoscopists at their respective institutions performing these complex procedures, as well as training fellows in these techniques. We share our perspectives based on our experience navigating through these issues at our institutions and discuss strategies to standardize training and how to potentially incorporate these measures in the process of credentialing and privileging in endoscopy.

COVID-19 and Canadian Gastroenterology Trainees

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted endoscopy services and education worldwide. This study aimed to characterize the impact of COVID-19 on gastroenterology trainees in Canada.

Methods

An analysis of Canadian respondents from the international EndoTrain survey, open from April 11 to May 2 2020 and distributed by program directors, trainees, and national and international gastroenterology societies’ representatives, was completed. The survey included questions on monthly endoscopy volume, personal protective equipment availability, trainee well-being and educational resources. The primary outcome was change in procedural volume during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary outcomes included trainee’s professional and personal concerns, anxiety and burnout.

Results

Thirty-four Canadian trainees completed the survey. Per month, participants completed a median of 30 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (interquartile range 16 to 50) prior to the pandemic compared to 2 (0 to 10) during the pandemic, 20 (8 to 30) compared to 2 (0 to 5) colonoscopies and 3 (1 to 10) compared to 0 (0 to 3) upper gastrointestinal bleeding procedures. There was a significant decrease in procedural volumes between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 time periods for all procedures (P < 0.001). Thirty (88%) trainees were concerned about personal COVID-19 exposure, 32 (94%) were concerned about achieving and/or maintaining clinical competence and 24 (71%) were concerned about prolongation of training time due to the pandemic. Twenty-six (79%) respondents experienced some degree of anxiety, and 10 (31%) experienced some degree of burnout.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially impacted gastroenterology trainees in Canada. As the pandemic eases, it important for gastrointestinal programs to adapt to maximize resident learning, maintain effective clinical care and ensure development of endoscopic competence.

Impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy trainees: an international survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected endoscopy services globally, the impact on trainees has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on procedural volumes and on the emotional well-being of endoscopy trainees worldwide.

METHODS

An international survey was disseminated over a 3-week period in April 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage reduction in monthly procedure volume before and during COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included potential variation of COVID-19 impact between different continents and rates and predictors of anxiety and burnout among trainees.

RESULTS

Across 770 trainees from 63 countries, 93.8% reported a reduction in endoscopy case volume. The median percentage reduction in total procedures was 99% (interquartile range, 85%-100%), which varied internationally (P < .001) and was greatest for colonoscopy procedures. Restrictions in case volume and trainee activity were common barriers. A total of 71.9% were concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic could prolonged training. Anxiety was reported in 52.4% of respondents and burnout in 18.8%. Anxiety was independently associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.15; P < .001), adequacy of personal protective equipment (OR, 1.75; P = .005), lack of institutional support for emotional health (OR, 1.67; P = .008), and concerns regarding prolongation of training (OR, 1.60; P = .013). Modifying existing national guidelines to support adequate endoscopy training during the pandemic was supported by 68.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to restrictions in endoscopic volumes and endoscopy training, with high rates of anxiety and burnout among endoscopy trainees worldwide. Targeted measures by training programs to address these key issues are warranted to improve trainee well-being and support trainee education.

Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) aiming to guide general gastroenterologists to develop and maintain skills in optical diagnosis during endoscopy. In general, this requires additional training beyond the core curriculum currently provided in each country. In this context, ESGE have developed a European core curriculum for optical diagnosis practice across Europe for high quality optical diagnosis training. 1:  ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should have achieved general competence in upper and/or lower gastrointestinal (UGI/LGI) endoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis of the UGI/LGI tract, meaning personal experience of at least 300 UGI and/or 300 LGI endoscopies and meeting the ESGE quality measures for UGI/LGI endoscopy. ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should be able and competent to perform UGI/LGI endoscopy with high definition white light combined with virtual and/or dye-based chromoendoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis. 2:  ESGE suggests competency in optical diagnosis can be learned by attending a validated optical diagnosis training course based on a validated classification, and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. If no validated training course is available, optical diagnosis can only be learned by attending a non-validated onsite training course and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. 3:  ESGE suggests endoscopists are competent in optical diagnosis after meeting the pre-adoption and learning criteria, and meeting competence thresholds by assessing a minimum number of lesions prospectively during real-time endoscopy. ESGE suggests ongoing in vivo practice by endoscopists to maintain competence in optical diagnosis. If a competent endoscopist does not perform in vivo optical diagnosis on a regular basis, ESGE suggests repeating the learning and competence phases to maintain competence.Key areas of interest were optical diagnosis training in Barrett's esophagus, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, diminutive colorectal lesions, early colorectal cancer, and neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Condition-specific recommendations are provided in the main document.

Impact of a national basic skills in colonoscopy course on trainee performance: An interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy basic skills in colonoscopy (BSC) course was introduced in 2009 to improve colonoscopy training within the United Kingdom, but its impact on trainee performance is unknown.

AIM

To assess whether attendance of the BSC could improve colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between 2011-2016 were stratified into 3 groups according to pre-course procedure count (< 70, 70-140 and > 140). Study outcomes, comprising the unassisted caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI), were studied over the 50 procedures pre and post- course. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to detect step-change changes attributable to the course.

RESULTS

A total of 369 trainees with pre-course procedure counts of < 70 (n = 118), 70-140 (n = 121) and > 140 (n = 130) were included. Over the 50 pre-course procedures, significant linear improvements in CIR were found, with average increases of 4.2, 3.6 and 1.7 percentage points (pp) per 10 procedures performed in the < 70, 70-140 and > 140 groups respectively (all P < 0.001). The < 70 procedures group saw a significant step-change improvement in CIR, increasing from 46% in the last pre-course procedure, to 51% in the first procedure post-course (P = 0.005). The CIR step-change was not significant in the 70-140 (68% to 71%; P = 0.239) or > 140 (86% to 87%; P = 0.354) groups. For PICI, significant step-change improvements were seen in all three groups, with average increases of 5.6 pp (P < 0.001), 5.4 pp (P = 0.003) and 3.9 pp (P = 0.014) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Attendance of the BSC was associated with a significant step-change improvement in PICI, regardless of prior procedural experience. However, CIR data suggest that the optimal timing of course attendance appears to be at earlier stages of training (< 70 procedures).

Characterizing the Development of Colonoscopy Competence Using Assessment Data

Assessment of endoscopist competence is an increasingly important component of colonoscopy quality assurance. In this study from the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, validity evidence is provided for the use of the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills assessment tool in the formative setting during training. In this national UK dataset, overall colonoscopy competence was typically achieved after 200-249 procedures, although certain complex procedural skills ("proactive problem solving" and "loop management") had not reached the threshold for competence even after 300 procedures. These data will help inform the development and/or refinement of certification policies and practices in jurisdictions around the world.