Impact of a structured capsule endoscopy training program on capsule endoscopy proficiency: a 3-year prospective Portuguese study

Aims There is scarce evidence regarding the outcomes of capsule endoscopy (CE) training programs and its impact amongst trainees. We aimed to analyze the impact of a CE training program on CE proficiency with a new developed CE training assessment tool, the pre and post Capsule Endoscopy Training Assessment (CETA). Additionally, we investigated whether prior experience in flexible endoscopic techniques or CE could influence participants’ CETA mean score and achievement of a posttraining learning goal.

Methods A 3-year prospective study was conducted and included gastroenterologists’ residents and physicians who attended our hands-on CE training program. Each participant performed pretraining and posttraining CETA, consisting of theoretical questions and interpretation of segmented CE videos (practical component) and ranging between 0-100%. The difference between theoretical, practical and overall pretraining and posttraining mean CETA score was compared and a posttraining learning goal was defined (overall posttraining mean CETA score of≥90%).

Results A total of 57 participants were included. The overall, theoretical and practical participants’ mean CETA score was significantly different between pretraining and posttraining (68.1 vs 94.4, P<0.001, respectively; 67.2 vs 94.4, P<0.001, respectively and 68.5 vs 94.4, P<0.001, respectively). Fifty participants (87.7%) achieved the posttraining learning goal and no significant differences regarding background variables were identified. Compared to participants without experience, those with previous contact with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and device-assisted enteroscopy had higher overall pretraining mean CETA score (70.3 vs 54.5, P=0.011; 70.0 vs 57.6, P=0.037; 78.6 vs 64.4, P=0.003, respectively), lower mean difference between overall pretraining and posttraining CETA score (8.0 vs 14, P=0.001; 8.0 vs 13, P=0.003; 6.0 vs 10.0, P=0.007, respectively) but not significantly different overall posttraining mean CETA score (94.0 vs 96.6, P=0.3; 93.9 vs 97.0, P=0.192; 96.2 vs 93.7, P=0.215, respectively). Compared to participants without experience, those with previous contact with CE had higher overall pretraining (74.7±2.5 vs 58.4±3.1, P<0.001, respectively), lower mean difference between overall pretraining and posttraining CETA score (7.0±5.0 vs 11±4.0, P=0.001, respectively) and higher overall posttraining mean CETA score (95.9±1.1 vs 92.1±1.3, P=0.029, respectively).

Conclusions Although further validation is required, CETA seems to be a useful tool in assessing the beneficial impact of a structured hands-on CE training program on CE proficiency. We demonstrated a significant improvement in participants’ mean CETA score after training, with the majority achieving the posttraining learning goal. The magnitude of improvement in CE proficiency after training was different based on previous experience in flexible endoscopic techniques and CE, being the least experienced participants those who benefited the most from CE training.

 

MissingLinkText

Conflicts of interest

Authors do not have any conflict of interest to disclose.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. April 2024