Successful Training in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Группа авторов
These quality measures represent best clinical practice and may be used for continuous quality improvement.
References
1 1 Ritk MS, Sawhney MK, Cohen J, et al.: Quality metrics for all endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81(1):3–18.
2 2 Froehlich F, Respond C, Mullhaupt B, et al.: Is the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy improved by use of explicit panel based appropriateness criteria? Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52(3):333–341.
3 3 Balaguer F, Llach J, Castells A, et al.: The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open access endoscopy unit: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21:609–613.
4 4 Feld AD: Informed consent: not just for procedures anymore. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(2):977–980.
5 5 Zuckerman MJ, Shen B, Harrison ME, et al.: Guideline: informed consent for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66(2):213–217.
6 6 Schloendorff vs. Society of New York Hospital, 1914:211 NY 123.
7 7 Feld AD: Malpractice, tort reform, and you, an introduction to risk management. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(2):977–980.
8 8 Berg JW: Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
9 9 Louisiana Revised Statutes Tit. 9, § 2794.
10 10 Frakes JT: Medicolegal issues. In: ERCP. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Publishing, 2008:3–11.
11 11 American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non‐Anesthesiologists: Practice guidelines for sedation. Anesthesiology 2002; 96:1004–1017.
12 12 Sharma V, Nguyen C, Crowell M, et al.: A national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66(1):27–34.
13 13 Vargo JJ, Holub JL, Faigel DO, et al.: Risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol‐mediated upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24:955–963.
14 14 Early DS, Lightdale JR, Vargo JJ, et al.: Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87(2):327–337.
15 15 Khashab MA, Chithadi KV, Acosta RD et al.: Antibiotic prophylaxis in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81:81–89.
16 16 Shaffer AC: Rates and characteristics of paid malpractice claims among US physicians by specialty, 1992–2014. JAMA 2018; 177(5):710–718.
17 17 Physician Insurers Association of America: PIAA Risk Management Review: Gastroenterology. Rockville, MD: Physician Insurers Association of America, 2005.
18 18 Physician Insurers Association of America: A Risk Management Review of Malpractice Claims: Gastroenterology Summary Report. Rockville, MD: Physician Insurers Association of America, 2005.
19 19 Levine EG: Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 41:448–452.
4 Training the Endoscopic Trainer
Catharine M. Walsh1 and Kevin A. Waschke2
1 Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
2 McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
Introduction
Endoscopic training programs strive to develop individuals capable of providing safe, efficient, and effective endoscopic care and meeting the rapidly changing service demands. This requires training in not only technical skills but also cognitive and nontechnical skills essential for clinical practice. In recent years, endoscopic training has begun to evolve from a traditionally experiential model of learning, in which individuals “learn by doing,” to a more structured approach grounded in evidence‐based educational principles [1–3]. It is increasingly recognized that effective endoscopic training requires preparation and structure, and should be provided by individuals with the requisite skills and behaviors required to teach endoscopy, including an understanding of adult learning principles, knowledge of best practices in procedural skills education and appropriate use of effective educational strategies, such as performance enhancing feedback [4]. In this chapter, we identify the key features of a successful endoscopic training environment, describe attributes of effective endoscopic trainers, outline the Preparation–Training–Wrap‐up framework that describes the essential components of an endoscopic teaching encounter, and finally discuss training aids and resources.
Training environment
The development of expertise in endoscopy requires extensive, sustained practice of the requisite skills as well as acquisition of the relevant knowledge and attitudinal and behavioral aspects (i.e., endoscopic nontechnical [5] or integrative skills [6] and “scopemanship” [7]) required to produce competent endoscopists. Expertise development is dependent not only on the quantity of time spent training, but also on training quality as well as trainee commitment and engagement. Central to this is the need for an effective training environment and culture. Endoscopic training needs to be accepted, supported, encouraged, and prioritized at an institutional level, particularly given the multiple competing priorities inherent in clinical care and the barriers to implementing change that often arise.
Training units require sufficient procedural volumes to ensure adequate training opportunities for trainees and trainers with interest and skill in teaching endoscopy [8]. Buy‐in and support from leadership is essential to ensure that trainers have dedicated time for endoscopy training and accompanying assessment, and that interprofessional team members, including nurses and managers, are engaged and committed to delivering high‐quality training. It is also important for training programs and institutions to develop policies and systems to support endoscopy education. For example, it is crucial to have a specified plan to ensure that trainers receive adequate education and are competent to undertake a trainer role. Designation of an endoscopy training lead can be beneficial to help create an environment and culture that recognize endoscopy training as a core component of service provision. Responsibilities of such leads can include allocation of training lists, trainee orientation, delivery of the endoscopy training curriculum, and review of trainee assessment portfolios to develop personalized learning plans.
Any change in training provision and culture must be done in a concerted manner and be supported with sufficient resources. As trainee presence leads to longer procedure times and negatively impacts case throughput and endoscopist billing [9–11], dedicated training lists (or portions of lists) are the best way to ensure that trainees receive adequate exposure and practice and that trainers have sufficient time to focus on the needs of trainees. Resources and infrastructure are also required to help collate feedback and assessment data from both trainees and trainers and ensure that it is acted on. Additionally, support is required to purchase training aids, such as magnetic endoscopic imagers and endoscopic simulators which, as discussed later in this chapter, can be of benefit in endoscopy training.
Attributes of effective endoscopy trainers
Teaching endoscopy is challenging for several reasons, including the complex nature of the task and the need for trainers to balance clinical and learning needs while ensuring patient safety, procedural efficiency, and provision of high‐quality care. Additionally, literature has shown that endoscopy trainers use variable teaching methods and styles of training [12–14]. Endoscopic training should be led by individuals who are committed, competent, and enthusiastic trainers. Trainers should not only demonstrate competence in the procedure(s) for which they provide training but should also have the requisite skills and behaviors required to teach endoscopy effectively, and, ideally, formal training in endoscopy teaching methodology. Additionally, it is important that trainers