Introduction

The training of gastroenterology residents in machine augmentd-simulated enviroment in Romania is a very limited feature and only available in the major university centers. The goal of this pilot study was to determine if a green designed simulator(Shoebox based endoscopic simulator-SBES) can mimic diagnostic endoscopy setting and thus improve endoscopy training for residents gaining dexterity and confidence.

Aims & Methods

A low-cost gastroscopy training model was created utilizing a budget of less than 10 Euro(gastroscope not included). Afterward, a training curriculum consisting of a sequence of tasks was designed to mimic standard techniques frequently utilized in gastroscopy. This curriculum was tested on the gastroenterology residents and nurses.
Development of competency in endoscopy among two gastroenterology first year residets with endoscopy naive skills was assessed during a month time while comparing it to two endoscopy naive nureses(having only visual experience of 25 years) and an endoscopy naive first year resident with gaming/instrumental background(25 years of gaming and 20 years of guitar playing skills). Baseline was assessed by performance of a consultant.
Measurement of development were rendered by supervising faculty by recording "insertion time","depth of unassisted insertion","independent procedure completion","ability to identify endoscopic landmarks" and "level of confidence".

Results

Simulator vs real life gastroscopy was assessed gaining 8/9 out of 10 points. Simulator trained residents outperformed endoscopy naive nurses by the end of the pilot study in all performance aspects(p=0.05). One however must mention that endoscopy naive nurses had a start baseline much nearer the consultant level in comparison to the residents.
Endoscopy naive resident with gaming/instrumental background held initialy a shorter "insertion time" in comparison to non gamer/instrumental counterparts.
All the assessed parameters improved gradually however the episodic assessment revealed induction reluctancy and by the end of the pilot study a steep lerning curve could be observed during thise training episodes. Confidence levels raised by the end of the study, reaching a medium level(scale 5 of 10)-consultant performace level was not reached(blinded subjects).

Conclusion

In this pilot study a month of SBES was utilized along with the GATE(gastroenterological education-training endoscopy)concept. The goal was to determine if SBES training can mimic in vivo training while enhancing competecy, dexterity and most of all self confidence. The subjective conclusion/wish of residents was to be able to continue with the simulated training. SBES training allows a wider accesability to train ex vivo and enhances faculty to be more efficient with their endoscopy practice while putting focus on sustainable care and being greener as well.

References

1 Weiguang Qiao et al, PLoS ONE, February 2014, Volume 9, Issue 2, e89224

Introduction

Gastroenterology is a medical specialty that includes several areas of study. Endoscopy occupies a central role in professional practice, whether in hospitals or in the private sector. The quality of initial training and the different needs of trainees are key to the quality of care delivered to the population. This study aims to assess endoscopic training experience during fellowship.

Aims & Methods

This is a cross-sectional, multicenter study conducted on gastroenterology residents practicing endoscopy and in the final phase of their curriculum (6th, 7th and 8th semesters). Postgraduated doctors have been excluded from the study. An electronic survey made by Google Forms and was sent nationwide on January 9, 2024. The survey consisted of 42 questions divided into 3 parts: The first part focused on the participants' socio-demographic data and their endoscopic experience, the second part focused on the quality of training of core endoscopic skills (cognitive and motor skills) during fellowship where a 5-point Likert scale was used to express residents' satisfaction with their skills, ranging from 1="very dissatisfied", 2="dissatisfied", 3="neither satisfied nor dissatisfied", 4="satisfied" and 5="very satisfied". The third part included questions in which participants expressed their needs and expectations for improving their training in endoscopy. A statistical analysis using the Student-t test and the Fisher’s exact test were performed. P values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using Jamovi (Version 2.3).

Results

We were able to collect data from 56 respondents. Most were female residents n=40 (71.4) with a mean age of 29.2 ± 2.5 years. The majority of fellows started practicing EGD in their 4th semester (91.1%), and colonoscopy in their 6th semester (57%). On average, the fellows are supervised by 5 senior doctors, including 2 who practice interventional endoscopy. Furthermore, 37.5% of participants report performing approximately more than 100 EGDs, 14.2% more than 100 colonoscopies, 80.4% report that they have performed less than 20 endoscopic variceal ligation and 14.3% have performed more than 10 polypectomies. An average rating score of 3.34 (1= very dissatisfied; 5= very satisfied) concerning the quality of training and feedback on cognitive aspects of endoscopy was found and we reported greatest emphasis for Procedure indication/contraindication and least on Capsule endoscopy interpretation.
The quality of training in technical aspects of endoscopy was rated higher (average rating score of 3.5). We reported greatest emphasis for Withdrawal/mucosal inspection and least on Esophageal dilation.
A significant association between motor skills and cognitive skills was found with a p<0.001.
Finally, to improve their training, 87.5% of respondents considered simulation to be important/very important, 98.2% of respondents intend to complete their endoscopy training at the end of their curriculum, and 87.5% are prepared to finance such a project (median: 1000 USD [1000;3000]).

Conclusion

Despite a significant improvement in training sites and technical facilities, training in endoscopy in healthcare institutions does not yet provide all the cognitive and technical skills required to enable fellows to be fully autonomous. With the development of endoscopic procedures, it seems essential for fellows to be able to perform more standard endoscopic procedures such as polypectomy and mucosectomy by the end of their curriculum. This may involve introducing regular endoscopy conferences and simulation training as a part of the curriculum.

Introduction

There is increasing recognition that effective resident training in gastrointestinal endoscopy should be provided by endoscopists who have received formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy.¹ While the implementation of Training the Colonoscopy Trainers (TCT) courses has led to significant improvements in colonoscopy quality outcomes^2,3 and polyp detection rates,⁴ evidence regarding the impact of TCT participation on teaching performance and resident learning – both of which are main goals of faculty development initiatives – is still lacking. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of TCT course implementation using Kirkpatrick’s model of training evaluation.

Aims & Methods

In this study, 24 gastroenterologists from a university hospital and two affiliated general teaching hospitals in the north-eastern educational region of the Netherlands, participated in a two-day TCT course. The course was evaluated at three levels of Kirkpatrick’s model: (a) post-course evaluations reflecting the initial reaction; (b) video analysis of endoscopy training in the workplace before and after the TCT course using the mini-Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report (mini-STTAR); (c) a post-course resident survey reflecting the impact on the home-environment. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to analyse the effectiveness of the TCT course.

Results

The TCT course was well received by participants, they highlighted the use of a structured training framework as a strength. Video analysis of endoscopy training in the workplace demonstrated a significant improvement in post-course trainer performance, both at 1-3 months (T1) and 6-9 months (T2). Significant improvements were found in the overall mini-STTAR scores (p<0.001), and across most mini-STTAR items, particularly in the items related to the phase preceding the actual training (referred to as the Set) and the evaluation after completion of the training (referred to as the Closure). Regarding the actual training (referred to as the Dialogue), participants demonstrated a significant positive change in ‘guiding/deconstructing’ and ‘controlling’ (both at T1 and T2) and in ‘encouraging/praise’ (only at T2). Participants received significantly higher 5-point Likert scale ratings as ‘excellent trainer’ at T1 (mean 4.13) and T2 (mean 4.29), compared to baseline (mean 3.58, p<0.001). In the post-course survey, all residents (N=16) were satisfied with the supervision of endoscopy trainers in their teaching hospitals. Nine (56%) reported uniform endoscopy supervision among trainers, a significant increase compared to a pre-course resident survey (8%, p=0.034).⁵ Although residents reported that the frequency of a didactic Set and Closure did not increase, most respondents indicated that the implementation of the TCT course improved the setting of learning objectives, the provision of spontaneous feedback, guidance during difficult endoscopies, and the prevention of undesired scope takeover.

Conclusion

The implementation of a TCT course provided a structured and useful training framework, and enhanced trainer performance, particularly in the didactic pre- and post-endoscopy training discussions, as well as in guiding, controlling, encouraging, and providing spontaneous feedback during the training of residents in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

References

1. Antonelli G, Voiosu AM, Pawlak KM, et al. 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. Endoscopy. 2024;56:131-150
2. Waschke KA, Anderson J, Macintosh D et al. Training the gastrointestinal endoscopy trainer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30:409-419
3. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013;62:242-249
4. Hoff G, Botteri E, Huppertz-Hauss G, et al. The effect of train-the-colonoscopy-trainer course on colonoscopy quality indicators. Endoscopy. 2021;53:1229-1234
5. Mousset RA, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Pierie JEN et al. Endoscopy training in the Netherlands: a national survey among gastroenterology residents. Endosc Int Open. 2022;10:E1548-E1554