Background Polypectomy is an essential skill for endoscopists to acquire. As polyps are encountered ad hoc during colonoscopies, exposure to polypectomy in clinical training may vary. There is a need to deliver a curriculum that standardizes exposure to polypectomy while remaining cost-effective for endoscopy programs worldwide. Purpose To develop low-cost simulated polyps that can be incorporated into endoscopic training programs, and to evaluate their perceived realism and useability for polypectomy training. Method We designed 3D molds based on the Paris classification, a validated rubric for polyp morphology. The polyps are depicted in Figure 1. Using low-cost materials, we created gel-based polyps compatible with physical colonic simulators. Current versions of the polyps were finalized based on visual realism and durability. Expert (performed >1000 procedures) and novice (<25 procedures) endoscopists were invited to perform simulated polypectomies and evaluate the realism of the polyps. Using a 7-point Likert scale (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”), we administered a survey adapted from the Direct Observed Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) checklist to evaluate the polyps on practicality of design and useability for training. Additionally, the simulator’s resemblance to human polypectomy was assessed through a scale with 1 indicating “low resemblance” and 7 indicating “high resemblance”. The ease of identifying morphology was also evaluated, with 1 indicating “difficult” and 7 indicating “easy”. Result(s) The survey was completed by 11 expert endoscopists and 10 novices. The median score submitted by experts on the polyps’ useability in training the technique for mobilization of the polyp was 7 (IQR 6-7). Experts rated the simulator’s practicality in teaching cold snare or electrocautery techniques with a median score of 6 (IQR 6-7). Lastly, the ability of the simulator to develop skills in identifying and treating the residual polyp was assessed by expert endoscopists, giving it a median score of 6 (IQR 6-7). The simulators were tested on similarity to human polypectomy, with the median score of expert groups being 5 (IQR 5-6), and novice groups being 6 (IQR 6-6). Both groups were asked to rate if morphology could be identified using the simulator; the median score of expert groups being 6 (IQR 6-7), and 6.5 for novice endoscopists (IQR 5-7). Image Conclusion(s) The development of simulated polyps with differing morphologies using low-cost and common materials with high realism is feasible. These polyps may potentially be integrated into different endoscopic training programs. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest A. Zhao: None Declared, N. Gimpaya: None Declared, J. Lisondra: None Declared, R. Fujiyoshi: None Declared, Y. Fujiyoshi: None Declared, R. Khan Grant / Research support from: Rishad Khan has received research grants from AbbVie (2018) and Ferring Pharmaceuticals (2019) and research funding from Pendopharm (2019). , D. Tham: None Declared, M. Scaffidi: None Declared, R. Bansal: None Declared, C. Walsh: None Declared, S. Grover Shareholder of: Samir C. Grover has equity in Volo Healthcare., Grant / Research support from: Samir C. Grover has received research grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Takeda, education grants from Janssen.
Background Assessment of competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is essential to ensure trainees possess the skills needed for independent practice. Traditionally, ERCP training has used the apprenticeship model, whereby novices learn skills under the supervision of an expert. A growing focus on procedural quality, however, has supported the implementation of competency-based medical education models which require documentation of a trainee’s competence for independent practice. Observational assessment tools with strong evidence of validity are critical to this process. Validity evidence supporting ERCP observational assessment tools has not been systematically evaluated. Purpose To conduct a systematic review of ERCP assessment tools and identify tools with strong evidence of validity using a unified validity evidence framework Method We conducted a systematic search using electronic databases and hand-searching from inception until August 2021 for studies evaluating observational assessment tools of ERCP performance. We used a unified validity framework to characterize validity evidence from five sources: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. Each domain was assigned a score of 0-3 (maximum score 15). We assessed educational utility and methodological quality using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument, respectively. Result(s) From 2769 records, we included 17 studies evaluating 7 assessment tools. Five tools were studied for clinical ERCP, one on simulated ERCP, and one on simulated and clinical ERCP. Validity evidence scores ranged from 2-12. The Bethesda ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (BESAT), ERCP Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Tool (ERCP DOPS), and The Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (TEESAT) had the strongest validity evidence with scores of 10, 12, and 11, respectively. Regarding educational utility, most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal additional resources. Overall methodological quality was strong, with scores ranging from 10-12.5 (maximum 13.5). Conclusion(s) The BESAT, ERCP DOPS, and TEESAT have strong validity evidence compared to other assessments. Integrating tools into training may help drive learners’ development and support competency decision-making. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below CAG Disclosure of Interest None Declared
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.