Advances and challenges in endoscopy training: A mixed methods study among endoscopy trainers in the Netherlands

Abstract

Background and study aims Variation between trainers in providing traditional gastrointestinal endoscopy training, in which residents learn endoscopy by doing under the supervision of endoscopy trainers, may cause differences in endoscopy competence between residents. In this study, we explored endoscopy trainers’ views on the current status and desired future best practices regarding endoscopy training.

Methods This mixed-methods study comprised quantitative survey data collected from 158 endoscopy trainers working in 26 gastroenterology teaching hospitals in the Netherlands and semi-structured interviews with 15 gastroenterology residency (associate) program directors (PDs). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and interview results with thematic analysis.

Results There was considerable variability in endoscopy training practices between teaching hospitals in the structure of endoscopy supervision, criteria used to determine the level of supervision, and participation of trainers in endoscopy teaching courses. Interview participants agreed that an endoscopy training supervisor requires several teaching strategies, highlighting the importance of formal education in endoscopy teaching. Interview participants perceived self-regulated learning strategies as essential for residents to learn endoscopy effectively. The perceived main barriers to effective supervision were a lack of time and heavy workload. Participants expressed the desire for more standardization in endoscopy training programs between teaching hospitals.

Conclusions Considerable variability in endoscopy training practices between gastroenterology teaching hospitals was identified. Formal education on endoscopy teaching, promotion of self-regulated learning, and standardization of endoscopy training programs and supervision practices have the potential to improve future endoscopy training.

Keywords

Endoscopy Upper GI Tract - Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Quality and logistical aspects - Training

• References

• 1 Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, de Man RA. et al. Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gut 2016; 65: 607-615
• 2 Waschke KA, Coyle W. Advances and challenges in endoscopic training. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 1985-1992
• 3 Kumar NL, Smith BN, Lee LS. et al. Best practices in teaching endoscopy based on a Delphi survey of gastroenterology program directors and experts in endoscopy education. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 574-579
• 4 Waschke KA, Anderson J, Macintosh D. et al. Training the gastrointestinal endoscopy trainer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30: 409-419
• 5 Ten Cate O. Entrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Med Educ 2005; 39: 1176-1177
• 6 Khan R, Zheng E, Wani SB. et al. Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1235-1245
• 7 Zanchetti DJ, Schueler SA, Jacobson BC. et al. Effective teaching of endoscopy: a qualitative study of the perceptions of gastroenterology fellows and attending gastroenterologists. Gastroentero Rep (Oxf) 2016; 4: 125-130
• 8 Brown F, Weidner A, Wells C. et al. UK endoscopy trainer survey: Perspectives on current endoscopy training delivery, experience, barriers and opportunities. Frontline Gastroenterol 2024; 15: 214-221
• 9 Huang C, Hopkins R, Huang K. et al. Standardizing endoscopy training: a workshop for endoscopy educators. MedEdPORTAL 2020; 16: 11015
• 10 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
• 11 The European Section and Board of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The Blue Book 2023. Accessed December 06, 2023 at: www.eubogh.org/blue-book
• 12 Maida M, Alrubaiy L, Bokun T. et al. Current challenges and future needs of clinical and endoscopic training in gastroenterology: A European survey. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E525-E533
• 13 Uitgave van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Maag-Darm-Leverartsen. NOVUM 1.1 Geactualiseerde versie van het landelijk opleidingsplan voor de specialistenopleiding Maag-Darm-Leverziekten 2022. Accessed October 10, 2023 at: https://www.mdl.nl/system/files/files/NOVUM%201.1%20-%20deel%20I%20%28na%20CGS%29.pdf
• 14 Barton JR, Corbett S, van der Vleuten CP. The validity and reliability of a Direct Observation of Procedural Skills assessment tool: assessing colonoscopic skills of senior endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 591-597
• 15 Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA. et al. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015; 42: 533-544
• 16 Amberscript Global B.V. Amberscript. Accessed October 10, 2023 at: https://www.amberscript.com/en
• 17 Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77-101
• 18 ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development Gmbh. 2024. ATLAS.ti version 23. Accessed October 10, 2023 at: https://atlasti.com
• 19 Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 1993; 100: 363-406
• 20 Fuchs M, Sewell JL, Kumar NL. Best practices in teaching endoscopy according to a Delphi survey of gastroenterology trainees. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2021; 9: 600-602
• 21 Waschke KA, Anderson J, Valori RM. et al. ASGE principles of endoscopic training. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 27-34
• 22 Rothwell C, Kehoe A, Farook SF. et al. Enablers and barriers to effective clinical supervision in the workplace: a rapid evidence review. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e052929
• 23 Mackenzie H, Cuming T, Miskovic D. et al. Design, delivery, and validation of a trainer curriculum for the national laparoscopic colorectal training program in England. Ann Surg 2015; 261: 149-155
• 24 Zimmerman BJ. Attaining self-regulation: a social-cognitive perspective. Handbook of self-regulation. Orlando: Academic Press; 2000
• 25 Wang J, Qiao WG, Ren YT. et al. Interactive training versus self-driven training in the prediction of colorectal polyp histology by trainees using the NICE classification. BMC Gastroenterol 2023; 23: 47
• 26 Grover SC, Scaffidi MA, Khan R. et al. Progressive learning in endoscopy simulation training improves clinical performance: A blinded randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 881-889
• 27 Jaensch C, Dall Jensen RD, Brydges R. et al. Supporting self-regulated-learning in colonoscopy training – A comparison cohort trial. Heliyon 2024; 10: e28133
• 28 Sandars J, Cleary TJ. Self-regulation theory: applications to medical education: AMEE Guide No. 58. Med Teach 2011; 33: 875-886
• 29 Kruger J, Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999; 77: 1121-1134
• 30 Ansell J, Hurley JJ, Horwood J. et al. Can endoscopists accurately self-assess performance during simulated colonoscopic polypectomy? A prospective, cross-sectional study. Am J Surg 2014; 207: 32-38
• 31 Van Houten-Schat MA, Berkhout JJ, van Dijk N. et al. Self-regulated learning in the clinical context: a systematic review. Med Educ 2018; 52: 1008-1015
• 32 Walsh CM, Sherlock ME, Ling SC. et al. Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 13: CD008237
• 33 Koch AD, Ekkelenkamp VE, Haringsma J. et al. Simulated colonoscopy training leads to improved performance during patient-based assessment. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 630-636
• 34 Anderson J, Lockett M. Training in therapeutic endoscopy: Meeting present and future challenges. Frontline Gastroenterol 2019; 10: 135-140
• 35 Olmos-Vega FM, Stalmeijer RE, Varpio L. et al. A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Med Teach 2022; 45: 1-11