Effect of individualized feedback on learning curves in EGD and colonoscopy: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Autor: Mohit Mittal, Eze Ezekwe, Kerri Austin, Eva Aagaard, Robert H. Lee, Violette C. Simon, Anand S. Shah, Matthew Cooley, Samuel Han, Eric A. Gaumnitz, Dayna S. Early, David H. Kerman, Asyia Ahmad, Kirsten Morigeau, William Sonnier, Paul Menard-Katcher, Lukejohn W. Day, Swati G. Patel, Michael Piper, Amandeep K. Shergill, Shivakumar Vignesh, Linda Carlin, Bryan B. Brimhall, Priya Kathpalia, Alan Shapiro, Joshua C. Obuch, Matthew Hall, Sachin Wani, Tisha Lunsford, Rajesh N. Keswani, Najwa El-Nachef, Swan Ellert, Anna Duloy, Cari Sorrell, Jatinder Goyal, Saad Alghamdi, Stanley J. Pietrak, Jack A. Di Palma, Charles Broy
Rok vydání: 2019
Předmět:
Zdroj: Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 91(4)
ISSN: 1097-6779
Popis: Background and Aims Gastroenterology fellowships need to ensure that trainees achieve competence in upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Because the impact of structured feedback remains unknown in endoscopy training, this study compared the effect of structured feedback with standard feedback on trainee learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy. Methods In this multicenter, cluster, randomized controlled trial, trainees received either individualized quarterly learning curves or feedback standard to their fellowship. Assessment was performed in all trainees using the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy tool on 5 consecutive procedures after every 25 EGDs and colonoscopies. Individual learning curves were created using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The primary outcome was the mean CUSUM score in overall technical and overall cognitive skills. Results In all, 13 programs including 132 trainees participated. The intervention arm (6 programs, 51 trainees) contributed 558 EGD and 600 colonoscopy assessments. The control arm (7 programs, 81 trainees) provided 305 EGD and 468 colonoscopy assessments. For EGD, the intervention arm (–.7 [standard deviation {SD}, 1.3]) had a superior mean CUSUM score in overall cognitive skills compared with the control arm (1.6 [SD, .8], P = .03) but not in overall technical skills (intervention, –.26 [SD, 1.4]; control, 1.76 [SD, .7]; P = .06). For colonoscopy, no differences were found between the 2 arms in overall cognitive skills (intervention, –.7 [SD, 1.3]; control, .7 [SD, 1.3]; P = .95) or overall technical skills (intervention, .1 [SD, 1.5]; control, –.1 [SD, 1.5]; P = .77). Conclusions Quarterly feedback in the form of individualized learning curves did not affect learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy in a clinically meaningful manner. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02891304.)
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: