Interactive training with a novel simulation model for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis improves trainee technique and confidence

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic hemostasis is a life-saving procedure for gastrointestinal bleeding; however, training for it is often performed on real patients and during urgent situations that put patients at risk. Reports of simulation-based training models for endoscopic hemostasis are scarce. Herein, we developed a novel simulator called “Medical Rising STAR-Ulcer type” to practice endoscopic hemostasis with hemoclips and coagulation graspers. This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of the clinical difficulty of this model and the effectiveness of simulation-based training for clipping hemostasis.

Patients and methods This was a prospective educational study. Fifty gastroenterology residents from Japan and Canada were recruited to participate in a simulation-based training program. The primary outcome was the success rate for clipping hemostasis. We measured differences in trainee subjective assessment scores and evaluated the co-occurrence network based on comments after training.

Results The hemostasis success rate of the trainees significantly increased after instruction (64% vs. 86%, P < 0.05). The success rate for ulcers in the upper body of the stomach (59%), a high-difficulty site, was significantly lower than that for ulcers in the antrum, even after feedback and instruction. Trainee self-perceived proficiency and confidence significantly improved after simulation-based training (P < 0.05). Co-occurrence network analysis showed that trainees valued a structured learning approach, acknowledged simulator limitations, and recognized the need for continuous skill refinement.

Conclusions Our study demonstrates the potential of our simulation-based training model as a valuable tool for improving technical skills and confidence in trainees learning to perform endoscopic hemostasis.

Keywords

Non-variceal bleeding - Endoscopy Upper GI Tract - Ulcers (peptic and other) - Quality and logistical aspects - Training

Publication History

Received: 14 August 2023

Accepted after revision: 04 December 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
17 January 2024

Article published online:
28 February 2024

• References

• 1 Adler DG, Bakis G. ASGE Training Committee. et al. Principles of training in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 231-235
• 2 Laine L, McQuaid KR. Endoscopic therapy for bleeding ulcers: an evidence-based approach based on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 33-47 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.08.016. (PMID: 18986845)
• 3 García-Iglesias P, Villoria A, Suarez D. et al. Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34: 888-900 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04830.x. (PMID: 21899582)
• 4 Hearnshaw SA, Logan RF, Lowe D. et al. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit. Gut 2011; 60: 1327-1335 DOI: 10.1136/gut.2010.228437. (PMID: 21490373)
• 5 Singh P, Aggarwal R, Tahir M. et al. A randomized controlled study to evaluate the role of video-based coaching in training laparoscopic skills. Ann Surg 2015; 261: 862-869 DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000857. (PMID: 25185469)
• 6 Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA. et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 2002; 236: 458-463
• 7 Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R. et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011; 306: 978-988 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.1234. (PMID: 21900138)
• 8 Abbott KL, Krumm AE, Kelley JK. et al. Surgical trainee performance and alignment with surgical program director expectations. Ann Surg 2022; 276: e1095-e1100
• 9 Finocchiaro M, Cortegoso Valdivia P, Hernansanz A. et al. Training simulators for gastrointestinal endoscopy: current and future perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13: 1427
• 10 Singh S, Sedlack RE, Cook DA. Effects of simulation-based training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1611-1623.e4 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.01.037. (PMID: 24509241)
• 11 Thai T, Louden DKN, Adamson R. et al. Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ 2022; 22: 581 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03652-9. (PMID: 35906652)
• 12 Matthes K. Simulator training in endoscopic hemostasis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2006; 16: 511-527 DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2006.03.016. (PMID: 16876722)
• 13 Hochberger J, Matthes K, Maiss J. et al. Training with the compactEASIE biologic endoscopy simulator significantly improves hemostatic technical skill of gastroenterology fellows: a randomized controlled comparison with clinical endoscopy training alone. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 204-215
• 14 Kanno T, Arata Y, Hatayama Y. et al. Novel simulator of endoscopic hemostasis with actual endoscope and devices. VideoGIE 2022; 8: 56-59
• 15 Segev E. Semantic network analysis in social sciences. Oxfordshire: Routledge; 2021
• 16 Salton G. Automatic text processing: the transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Boston, Addison: Wesley Longman Publishing; 1989
• 17 Sharma A, Sharma MN. Text summarization using K-means, Tanimoto distance & Jaccard similarity. IJCTT 2020; 68: 87-93
• 18 McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER. et al. Effect of practice on standardised learning outcomes in simulation-based medical education. Med Educ 2006; 40: 792-797 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02528.x. (PMID: 16869926)
• 19 Purnell SM, Vargo DJ, Sarap M. et al. Simulation training for the endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a nationwide survey of rural surgeons’ needs and preferences analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 333-339 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07405-x. (PMID: 32030550)
• 20 Cohen ER, Feinglass J, Barsuk JH. et al. Cost savings from reduced catheter-related bloodstream infection after simulation-based education for residents in a medical intensive care unit. Simul Healthc 2010; 5: 98-102
• 21 Lau JY, Barkun A, Fan DM. et al. Challenges in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Lancet 2013; 381: 2033-2043 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60596-6. (PMID: 23746903)
• 22 Elmunzer BJ, Young SD, Inadomi JM. et al. Systematic review of the predictors of recurrent hemorrhage after endoscopic hemostatic therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2625-2632
• 23 Kuellmer A, Behn J, Meier B. et al. Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. United European Gastroenterol J 2019; 7: 1226-1233 DOI: 10.1177/2050640619871754. (PMID: 31700635)
• 24 Pugh CM, Salud LH. Association for Surgical Education. Fear of missing a lesion: use of simulated breast models to decrease student anxiety when learning clinical breast examinations. Am J Surg 2007; 193: 766-770 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.12.033. (PMID: 17512293)
• 25 Aller L, Shelestak D, Phillips L. et al. Measuring nursing student development through computer-based simulation activities. Nurse Educ 2023; 48: 298-303
• 26 McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER. et al. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med 2011; 86: 706-711