Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Oct;90(4):613-620.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.05.024. Epub 2019 May 20.
The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tools for colonoscopy and EGD were both put forth by the Training Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), with the intent of providing teachers and programs a means to continuously assess fellow skills in these procedures throughout their years of training. Despite the availability of the tools, there are no data that define when competency in EGD has been reached. The goal of this study is to validate the EGD ACE tool (ACE-E) and for the first time describe learning curves and competency benchmarks for EGD by examining a large national cohort of trainees.
In a prospective, multicenter trial, gastroenterology fellows at all stages of training had their core cognitive and motor skills in EGDs assessed by staff using the ACE-E tool. Evaluations occurred at set intervals of every 50 procedures over an academic year. Like the previously reported and validated ACE tool for colonoscopy, the ACE-E tool uses a 4-point grading scale to define a skills continuum from novice to competent. At each assessment interval, average scores for each skill were computed and overall competency benchmarks for each skill were established using the contrasting groups method.
Ninety-six GI fellows at 10 U.S. academic institutions had 1002 EGDs assessed using the ACE-E tool. Average ACE-E scores of 3.5 were found to be inclusive of all minimal competency thresholds identified for each core skill. In addition, independent intubation of the second part of the duodenum (D2) at rates of ≥95% as well as D2 intubation times of ≤4.75 minutes and average total procedure times of ≤12.5 minutes were identified as the points separating competent from non-competent groups. Although the average fellow achieves the D2 intubation rates and time criteria by 100 and 150 procedures, respectively, achieving ACE-E threshold scores on the remaining metrics was typically not achieved until 200 to 250 procedures.
Nationally generalizable learning curves for EGD skills in GI fellows are described. Average ACE-E scores of 3.5, independent D2 intubation rates of 95%, and D2 intubation times of ≤4.75 minutes are recommended as minimum competency criteria. On average, it takes GI fellows only 150 procedures to simply drive the scope adequately but 250 procedures to achieve minimum competence in the remaining cognitive and motor skills. The D2 intubation rate threshold and learning curve found in this multicenter cohort using the ACE-E tool are similar to those recently described by researchers in the United Kingdom; however, development of cognitive and overall competence requires a higher procedure threshold than previously described.
美国胃肠内镜学会(ASGE)培训委员会提出了用于结肠镜检查和内镜检查的评估内镜技能(ACE)工具,旨在为教师和培训项目提供一种方法,以便在培训期间持续评估学员在这些程序中的技能。尽管这些工具已经存在,但还没有数据定义何时达到内镜检查的能力。本研究的目的是验证内镜检查 ACE 工具(ACE-E),并首次通过检查大量全国性的学员队列来描述内镜检查的学习曲线和能力基准。
在一项前瞻性、多中心试验中,各级培训的胃肠病学研究员都接受了工作人员使用 ACE-E 工具对其核心认知和运动技能的评估。在一个学年中,每 50 次操作间隔设置一个评估时间点。与之前报道和验证的结肠镜 ACE 工具一样,ACE-E 工具使用 4 分制评分标准来定义从新手到熟练的技能连续体。在每个评估间隔,计算每个技能的平均分数,并使用对比组方法为每个技能建立整体能力基准。
来自美国 10 所学术机构的 96 名 GI 研究员对 1002 例内镜检查使用 ACE-E 工具进行了评估。发现平均 ACE-E 得分为 3.5,包括每个核心技能确定的所有最低能力阈值。此外,第二部分十二指肠(D2)的独立插管率≥95%,D2 插管时间≤4.75 分钟,以及平均总操作时间≤12.5 分钟,这些指标都将能力较强的学员与能力较弱的学员区分开来。尽管平均研究员在 100 次和 150 次操作时分别达到 D2 插管率和时间标准,但直到 200 到 250 次操作时才通常达到 ACE-E 阈值分数。
描述了 GI 研究员内镜技能的全国范围内可推广的学习曲线。建议平均 ACE-E 得分为 3.5,独立的 D2 插管率为 95%,D2 插管时间≤4.75 分钟作为最低能力标准。平均而言,GI 研究员只需 150 次操作即可熟练地推动内镜,但要达到剩余认知和运动技能的最低能力水平,则需要 250 次操作。本研究中使用 ACE-E 工具在多中心队列中发现的 D2 插管率阈值和学习曲线与英国研究人员最近描述的相似;然而,认知和整体能力的发展需要比以前描述的更高的操作阈值。