Expertise in colonoscopy intubation does not predict diagnostic accuracy: a simulation-based study

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Studies have linked cecal intubation rate with adenoma detection rate; however, the direct association between technical performance during colonoscopy intubation and withdrawal has never been explored. Thus, it remains unclear whether gentle and efficient intubation predicts superior mucosal inspection. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between performance during intubation and withdrawal in a simulation-based setup.

Methods Twenty-four physicians with various experience in colonoscopy performed twice on the Endoscopy Training System (ETS). Intubation skills were evaluated by assessing tasks on the ETS related to intubation (scope manipulation and loop management) and use of a computerized assessment tool called the 3D-Colonoscopy Progression Score (3D-CoPS). Diagnostic accuracy was defined by the number of polyps found during the ETS task of mucosal inspection. Pearson’s correlations were calculated to explore associations between intubation skill and diagnostic accuracy.

Results The correlation analysis between 3D-CoPS and number of polyps found during mucosal inspection revealed a weak and insignificant correlation (0.157, P = 0.3). Likewise, an insignificant correlation was seen between ETS intubation and number of polyps found (0.149, P = 0.32).

Conclusions We found no evidence to support that technical performance during intubation is correlated with mucosal inspection performance in a simulation-based setting.

Publication History

Received: 29 November 2020

Accepted: 22 June 2021

Article published online:
14 January 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ. et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1899-1906.e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Sedlack RE, Coyle WJ. Assessment of competency in endoscopy: Establishing and validating generalizable competency benchmarks for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 516-523.e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Dafnis G, Granath F, Påhlman L. et al. The impact of endoscopists’ experience and learning curves and interendoscopist variation on colonoscopy completion rates. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 511-517
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for gi endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Vilmann AS, Lachenmeier C, Svendsen MBS. et al. Using computerized assessment in simulated colonoscopy: a validation study. Endosc Int Open 2020; 08: E783-E791
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( ESGE ) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2015; 49: 1175-1189
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A. et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376-380
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Wallace MB, Crook JE, Thomas CS. et al. Effect of an endoscopic quality improvement program on adenoma detection rates: a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial in a clinical practice setting (EQUIP-3). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 538-545.e4
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Ritter EM, Taylor ZA, Wolf KR. et al. Simulation-based mastery learning for endoscopy using the endoscopy training system: a strategy to improve endoscopic skills and prepare for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) manual skills exam. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2018; 32: 413-420
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Downing S, Yudkowsky R. Assessment in Health Professions Education. Routledge; United Kingdom: 2009
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 13 Sofia A, Thomsen S, Konge L. et al. Is there inter-procedural transfer of skills in intraocular surgery ? A randomized controlled trial. Acta Ophthalmol 2017; 57: 845-851
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Bjerrum F, Sorensen JL, Konge L. et al. Randomized trial to examine procedure-to-procedure transfer in laparoscopic simulator training. Br J Surg 2016; 103: 44-50
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Mills J, Hougen H. et al. Does robotic surgical simulator performance correlate with surgical skill?. J Surg Educ 2017; 74: 1052-1056 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.05.011. (Epub 2017 Jun 13)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B. et al. Linking simulation-based educational assessments and patient-related outcomes. Acad Med 2015; 90: 246-256
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, De Man RA. et al. Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: A systematic review. Gut 2016; 65: 607-615
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Ritter EM, Cox TC, Trinca KD. et al. Simulated Colonoscopy Objective Performance Evaluation (SCOPE): A non-computer-based tool for assessment of endoscopic skills. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2013; 27: 4073-4080
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Hill A, Horswill MS, Plooy AM. et al. Assessment of colorectal polyp recognition skill: development and validation of an objective test. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2426-2436
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Zupanc CM, Wallis GM, Hill A. et al. Assessing colonoscopic inspection skill using a virtual withdrawal simulation: a preliminary validation of performance metrics. BMC Med Educ 2017; 17: 118
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Andersen SAW, Mikkelsen PT, Sørensen MS. Expert sampling of VR simulator metrics for automated assessment of mastoidectomy performance. Laryngoscope 2019; DOI: 10.1002/lary.27798.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Hill A, Horswill MS, Plooy AM. et al. Assessing the realism of colonoscopy simulation: The development of an instrument and systematic comparison of 4 simulators. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 631-640.e3
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Konge L, Svendsen MBS, Preisler L. et al. Combining different methods improves assessment of competence in colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 601-605
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar