Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110(7):956-62. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.24. Epub 2015 Mar 24.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) emphasizes the importance of medical trainees meeting specific performance benchmarks and demonstrating readiness for unsupervised practice. The aim of this study was to examine the readiness of Gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs for competency-based evaluation in endoscopic procedural training.
ACGME-accredited GI program directors (PDs) and GI trainees nationwide completed an online survey of domains relevant to endoscopy training and competency assessment. Participants were queried about current methods and perceived quality of endoscopy training and assessment of competence. Participants were also queried about factors deemed important in endoscopy competence assessment. Five-point Likert items were analyzed as continuous variables by an independent t-test and χ(2)-test was used for comparison of proportions.
Survey response rate was 64% (94/148) for PDs and 47% (546/1,167) for trainees. Twenty-three percent of surveyed PDs reported that they do not have a formal endoscopy curriculum. PDs placed less importance (1—very important to 5—very unimportant) on endoscopy volume (1.57 vs. 1.18, P<0.001), adenoma detection rate (2.00 vs. 1.53, P<0.001), and withdrawal times (1.96 vs. 1.68, P=0.009) in determining endoscopy competence compared with trainees. A majority of PDs report that competence is assessed by procedure volume (85%) and teaching attending evaluations (96%). Only a minority of programs use skills assessment tools (30%) or specific quality metrics (28%). Specific competencies are mostly assessed by individual teaching attending feedback as opposed to official documentation or feedback from a PD. PDs rate the overall quality of their endoscopy training and assessment of competence as better than overall ratings by trainees.
Although the majority of PDs and trainees nationwide believe that measuring specific metrics is important in determining endoscopy competence, most programs still rely on procedure volume and subjective attending evaluations to determine overall competence. As medical training transitions from an apprenticeship model to competency-based education, there is a need for improved endoscopy curricula which are better suited to demonstrate readiness for unsupervised practice.
研究生医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)强调医学受训者达到特定绩效基准并展示对无监督实践的准备程度的重要性。本研究旨在检查胃肠病学(GI)奖学金计划在基于能力的内镜程序培训评估方面的准备情况。
全国范围内的 ACGME 认证的 GI 项目主任(PD)和 GI 受训者完成了一项关于内镜培训和能力评估相关领域的在线调查。参与者被询问了目前的内镜培训方法和评估能力的质量。参与者还被询问了认为在内镜能力评估中很重要的因素。使用独立 t 检验分析 5 点李克特项目作为连续变量,使用 χ(2)-检验比较比例。
PD 调查的回应率为 64%(94/148),受训者的回应率为 47%(546/1167)。23%的被调查 PD 报告他们没有正式的内镜课程。PD 对内镜容量(1-非常重要到 5-非常不重要)(1.57 对 1.18,P<0.001)、腺瘤检出率(2.00 对 1.53,P<0.001)和撤回时间(1.96 对 1.68,P=0.009)的重视程度低于受训者。大多数 PD 报告通过程序量(85%)和教学主管评估(96%)来评估能力。只有少数计划使用技能评估工具(30%)或特定质量指标(28%)。特定能力主要由个别教学主管反馈评估,而不是官方文件或 PD 的反馈。PD 对他们的内镜培训和能力评估的整体质量的评价高于受训者的整体评价。
尽管全国范围内的大多数 PD 和受训者都认为测量特定指标对于确定内镜能力很重要,但大多数计划仍然依赖程序量和主观主管评估来确定整体能力。随着医学培训从学徒模式向基于能力的教育转变,需要改进更适合展示对无监督实践的准备程度的内镜课程。