Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Training in Endoscopy

  • Endoscopy (P Siersema, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of the review

Progress towards the goal of high-quality endoscopy across health economies has been founded on high-quality structured training programmes linked to credentialing practice and ongoing performance monitoring. This review appraises the recent literature on training interventions, which may benefit performance and competency acquisition in novice endoscopy trainees.

Recent findings

Increasing data on the learning curves for different endoscopic procedures has highlighted variations in performance amongst trainees. These differences may be dependent on the trainee, trainer and training programme. Evidence of the benefit of knowledge-based training, simulation training, hands-on courses and clinical training is available to inform the planning of ideal training pathway elements. The validation of performance assessment measures and global competency tools now also provides evidence on the effectiveness of training programmes to influence the learning curve. The impact of technological advances and intelligent metrics from national databases is also predicted to drive improvements and efficiencies in training programme design and monitoring of post-training outcomes.

Summary

Training in endoscopy may be augmented through a series of pre-training and in-training interventions. In conjunction with performance metrics, these evidence-based interventions could be implemented into training pathways to optimise and quality assure training in endoscopy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADR:

Adenoma detection rate (ADR)

ASGE:

American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

AUGIB:

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

CIR:

Caecal intubation rate

CUSUM:

Cumulative summation

DOPS:

Direct observation of procedural skills

ENTS:

Endoscopic non-technical skills

ERCP:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

EUS:

Endoscopic ultrasound

FA:

Formative assessment

JAG:

Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JETS:

JAG Endoscopy Training System

KPI:

Key performance indicator

PCCRC:

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer

RCT:

Randomised controlled trial

SBT:

Simulation-based training

SCC:

Structured comprehensive curriculum

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Ensuring competence in endoscopy. Available: http://s3.gi.org/physicians/EnsuringCompetence.pdf; cited: 10th April.2018.

  2. Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–306.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM, et al. Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol: WJG. 2013;19:2355–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rozenblum R, Greaves F, Bates DW. The role of social media around patient experience and engagement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. • Preisler L, Svendsen MBS, Svendsen LB, et al. Methods for certification in colonoscopy—a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53:350–8. This is the first paper on credentialling systems in colonoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. •• Faulx AL, Lightdale JR, Acosta RD, et al. Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:273–81. Updated ASGE guidelines of high importance to US trainees.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. New DOPS and DOPyS forms and certification criteria. Available: https://www.thejag.org.uk/Downloads/JAG%20training%20information/DOPS%20and%20DOPyS%20form%20and%20JAG%20certification%20criteria%20update%20-%201%20February%202017.pdf; cited: 10th April.2018.

  9. Cotton PB, Feussner D, Dufault D, et al. A survey of credentialing for ERCP in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:866–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bekkali NLH, Johnson GJ. Training in ERCP and EUS in the UK anno 2017. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2017;8:124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. • Patel K, Rajendran A, Faiz O, et al. An international survey of polypectomy training and assessment. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E190–7. This paper outlines the need for formal polypectomy training guidance internationally.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. • Biswas S, Alrubaiy L, China L, et al. Trends in UK endoscopy training in the BSG trainees’ national survey and strategic planning for the future. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2017-100,848. Provides a glimpse of future endoscopy training pathways in the UK.

  13. Jirapinyo P, Imaeda AB, Thompson CC. Endoscopic training in gastroenterology fellowship: adherence to core curriculum guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3570–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. •• Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, de Man RA, et al. Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gut. 2016;65:607–15. Seminal review paper on learning curves, training models, and methods for competency assessment.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. •• Ward ST, Hancox A, Mohammed MA, et al. The learning curve to achieve satisfactory completion rates in upper GI endoscopy: an analysis of a national training database. Gut. 2017;66:1022–30. Largest learning curve dataset to date for gastroscopy, covering factors associated with procedural completion in trainees.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Ward ST, Mohammed MA, Walt R, et al. An analysis of the learning curve to achieve competency at colonoscopy using the JETS database. Gut. 2014;63:1746. Largest learning curve dataset to date for gastroscopy, covering factors associated with procedural completion in trainees.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. • Wani S, Hall M, Keswani RN, et al. Variation in aptitude of trainees in endoscopic ultrasonography, based on cumulative sum analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:1318–1325.e1312. One of the first learning curve papers in EUS, describing a novel EUS formative assessment tool.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. • Wani S, Hall M, Wang AY, et al. Variation in learning curves and competence for ERCP among advanced endoscopy trainees by using cumulative sum analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:711–719.e711. Covers ERCP learning curves, describing a novel ERCP formative assessment tool.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. •• Wani S, Keswani R, Hall M, et al. A prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence in endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among advanced endoscopy trainees: the Rapid Assessment of Trainee Endoscopy Skills study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:1758–1767.e1711. Details competency development in EUS and ERCP in US advanced endoscopy trainees.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Neumann M, Meining A, Buerschaper C, et al. Training in GI endoscopy: can we objectively predict the performance of trainees? A prospective correlation study. Z Gastroenterol. 2005;43:445–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Harrington CM, Chaitanya V, Dicker P, et al. Playing to your skills: a randomised controlled trial evaluating a dedicated video game for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6107-2.

  22. • Graafland M, Bemelman WA, Schijven MP. Game-based training improves the surgeon’s situational awareness in the operation room: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:4093–101. RCT showing potential role of video gaming on non-technical skill development.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Adams BJ, Margaron F, Kaplan BJ. Comparing video games and laparoscopic simulators in the development of laparoscopic skills in surgical residents. J Surg Educ. 2012;69:714–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schlickum MK, Hedman L, Enochsson L, et al. Systematic video game training in surgical novices improves performance in virtual reality endoscopic surgical simulators: a prospective randomized study. World J Surg. 2009;33:2360–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Siau K, Dunckley P, Anderson J, et al. PTU-009 Competency of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) during endoscopy training. Gut. 2017;66:A54.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vande Walle K, Greenberg C. Intraoperative non-technical skills: a critical target for improving surgical outcomes. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chan BPH, Hussey A, Rubinger N, et al. Patient comfort scores do not affect endoscopist behavior during colonoscopy, while trainee involvement has negative effects on patient comfort. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E1259–e1267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Jirapinyo P, Thompson CC. Current status of endoscopic simulation in gastroenterology fellowship training programs. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:1913–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Triantafyllou K, Lazaridis LD, Dimitriadis GD. Virtual reality simulators for gastrointestinal endoscopy training. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;6:6–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Walsh CM, Sherlock ME, Ling SC, et al. Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008237.pub2:Cd008237.

  31. Singh S, Sedlack RE, Cook DA. Effects of simulation-based training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:1611–1623.e1614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Qiao W, Bai Y, Lv R, et al. The effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on novices: a systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e89224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ferlitsch A, Schoefl R, Puespoek A, et al. Effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on performance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2010;42:1049–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ende A, Zopf Y, Konturek P, et al. Strategies for training in diagnostic upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:254–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gerson LB, Van Dam J. A prospective randomized trial comparing a virtual reality simulator to bedside teaching for training in sigmoidoscopy. Endoscopy. 2003;35:569–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. •• Grover SC, Scaffidi MA, Khan R, et al. Progressive learning in endoscopy simulation training improves clinical performance: a blinded randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:881–9. This RCT provides much needed evidence to direct the structure of SBT.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Haycock A, Koch AD, Familiari P, et al. Training and transfer of colonoscopy skills: a multinational, randomized, blinded, controlled trial of simulator versus bedside training. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:298–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ahlberg G, Hultcrantz R, Jaramillo E, et al. Virtual reality colonoscopy simulation: a compulsory practice for the future colonoscopist? Endoscopy. 2005;37:1198–204.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Jirapinyo P, Abidi WM, Aihara H, et al. Preclinical endoscopic training using a part-task simulator: learning curve assessment and determination of threshold score for advancement to clinical endoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:4010–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Di Giulio E, Fregonese D, Casetti T, et al. Training with a computer-based simulator achieves basic manual skills required for upper endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:196–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ansell J, Hurley JJ, Horwood J, et al. The Welsh Institute for Minimal Access Therapy colonoscopy suitcase has construct and concurrent validity for colonoscopic polypectomy skills training: a prospective, cross-sectional study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:490–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jovanovic I, Fry LC, Rustemovic N, et al. Initial validation of a simple, nonbiological, mechanical ERCP training model for cannulation and stent placement. Endoscopy. 2015;47(Suppl 1 UCTN):E585–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. • Dhir V, Itoi T, Pausawasdi N, et al. Evaluation of a novel, hybrid model (Mumbai EUS II) for stepwise teaching and training in EUS-guided biliary drainage and rendezvous procedures. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E1087–e1095. Validity data for a novel mechanical EUS training model.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Camus M, Marteau P, Pocard M, et al. Validation of a live animal model for training in endoscopic hemostasis of upper gastrointestinal bleeding ulcers. Endoscopy. 2013;45:451–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Liao WC, Leung JW, Wang HP, et al. Coached practice using ERCP mechanical simulator improves trainees’ ERCP performance: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2013;45:799–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Javan R, Zeman MN. A prototype educational model for hepatobiliary interventions: unveiling the role of graphic designers in medical 3D printing. J Digit Imaging. 2018;31:133–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee S, Ahn JY, Han M, et al. Efficacy of a three-dimensional-printed training simulator for endoscopic biopsy in the stomach. Gut Liver. 2018;12:149–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Noda K, Kitada T, Suzuki Y, et al. A novel physical colonoscopy simulator based on analysis of data from computed tomography colonography. Surgery Today. 2017;47:1153–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Mahmood T, Darzi A. The learning curve for a colonoscopy simulator in the absence of any feedback: no feedback, no learning. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:1224–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. •• Grover SC, Garg A, Scaffidi MA, et al. Impact of a simulation training curriculum on technical and nontechnical skills in colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:1072–9. This RCT provides much needed evidence to direct the structure of SBT.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Grover SC, Scaffidi MA, Khan R, et al. Sa1075 A virtual reality curriculum in non-technical skills improves colonoscopic performance: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 85:AB181.

  52. • Koch AD, Ekkelenkamp VE, Haringsma J, et al. Simulated colonoscopy training leads to improved performance during patient-based assessment. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:630–6. This study links SBT with trainee outcomes during patient-based endoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. •• Siau K, Dunckley P, Valori R, et al. Changes in scoring of Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) forms and the impact on competence assessment. Endoscopy. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0576-6667. Validity data to support the updated JAG DOPS and for a supervision-based scoring scale.

  54. •• Sedlack RE, Coyle WJ. Assessment of competency in endoscopy: establishing and validating generalizable competency benchmarks for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:516–523.e511. Illustrates competency development by colonoscopy experience as assessed by the ACE tool.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Siau K, Anderson J, Beales I, et al. PTU-013 Trends in certification for gastrointestinal endoscopy and variations between trainee specialties: results from the uk jets database. Gut. 2017;66:A57.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Turner J, Hawkes N, Hurley J et al. Accelerated training in upper GI endoscopy—an analysis of SPRINT programme outcomes. United European Gastroenterol J 2015; 2(Supplement 1)

  57. Jorgensen JE, Elta GH, Stalburg CM, et al. Do breaks in gastroenterology fellow endoscopy training result in a decrement in competency in colonoscopy? Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:503–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Higashi R, Uraoka T, Kato J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of narrow-band imaging and pit pattern analysis significantly improved for less-experienced endoscopists after an expanded training program. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:127–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Iacucci M, Trovato C, Daperno M, et al. Development and validation of the SIMPLE endoscopic classification of diminutive and small colorectal polyps. Endoscopy. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-100791.

  60. Nakanishi H, Doyama H, Ishikawa H, et al. Evaluation of an e-learning system for diagnosis of gastric lesions using magnifying narrow-band imaging: a multicenter randomized controlled study. Endoscopy. 2017;49:957–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. van Doorn SC, Bastiaansen BAJ, Thomas-Gibson S, et al. Polypectomy skills of gastroenterology fellows: can we improve them? Endosc Int Open. 2016;04:E182–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Haycock AV, Youd P, Bassett P, et al. Simulator training improves practical skills in therapeutic GI endoscopy: results from a randomized, blinded, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:835–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Thomas-Gibson S, Bassett P, Suzuki N, et al. Intensive training over 5 days improves colonoscopy skills long-term. Endoscopy. 2007;39:818–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Trindade AJ, Lichtenstein DR, Aslanian HR, et al. Devices and methods to improve colonoscopy completion (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:625–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ishaq S, Siau K, Harrison E, et al. Technological advances for improving adenoma detection rates: the changing face of colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis. 2017;49:721–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Shah SG, Brooker JC, Williams CB, et al. Effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on colonoscopy performance: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2000;356:1718–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. • Tang Z, Zhang DS, Thrift AP, et al. Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on the learning curve and quality in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:723–732.e723. One of the few RCTs investigating the role of technological adjuncts on trainee performance.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kondo S, Yamaji Y, Watabe H, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the usefulness of a transparent hood attached to the tip of the colonoscope. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:75–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Manta R, Mangiavillano B, Fedeli P, et al. Hood colonoscopy in trainees: a useful adjunct to improve the performance. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:2675–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Asai S, Fujimoto N, Tanoue K, et al. Water immersion colonoscopy facilitates straight passage of the colonoscope through the sigmoid colon without loop formation: randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc. 2015;27:345–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ngo C, Leung JW, Mann SK, et al. Interim report of a randomized cross-over study comparing clinical performance of novice trainee endoscopists using conventional air insufflation versus warm water infusion colonoscopy. J Interv Gastroenterol. 2012;2:135–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Poulose BK, et al. Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy. Surgical Endoscopy. 2010;24:1834–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. •• Walsh CM, Ling SC, Khanna N, et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool: reliability and validity evidence. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1417–1424.e1412. Validity and reliability data to support a colonoscopy competence assessment tool, which was derived using formal DELPHI methodology.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sedlack RE, Coyle WJ, Obstein KL, et al. ASGE’s assessment of competency in endoscopy evaluation tools for colonoscopy and EGD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. •• Kumar NL, Kugener G, Perencevich ML, et al. The SAFE-T assessment tool: derivation and validation of a web-based application for point-of-care evaluation of gastroenterology fellow performance in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:262–9. Evidence in support of a novel, concise, colonoscopy assessment tool.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Sedlack RE. Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:355-366.e351–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Gupta S, Anderson J, Bhandari P, et al. Development and validation of a novel method for assessing competency in polypectomy: direct observation of polypectomy skills. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1232–1239.e1232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Profanter C, Perathoner A. DOPS (Direct Observation of Procedural Skills) in undergraduate skills-lab: Does it work? Analysis of skills-performance and curricular side effects. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 2015;32:Doc45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Jain V, Agrawal V, Biswas S. Use of formative assessment as an educational tool. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2012;24:68–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, Lesterhuis W, et al. P187 Training in colonoscopy: the value of a standardized assessment program. United European Gastroenterol J. 2013;1(1 Suppl):A182.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 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;75:591–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Patel K, Faiz O, Rutter M, et al. The impact of the introduction of formalised polypectomy assessment on training in the UK. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2017;8:104–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. DOPS Forms For International and reference use only. Available: https://www.thejag.org.uk/AboutUs/DownloadCentre.aspx; cited: 10th April.2018.

  84. Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, Haringsma J, et al. Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2014;5:10–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Koch AD, Haringsma J, Schoon EJ, et al. Competence measurement during colonoscopy training: the use of self-assessment of performance measures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:971–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Scaffidi MA, Grover SC, Carnahan H, et al. Impact of experience on self-assessment accuracy of clinical colonoscopy competence. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:827–836.e822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Harewood GC, Murray F, Winder S, et al. Evaluation of formal feedback on endoscopic competence among trainees: the EFFECT trial. Ir J Med Sci. 2008;177:253–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. • Dilly CK, Sewell JL. How to give feedback during endoscopy training. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:632–6. Practical review on feedback provision, covering cognitive load theory.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Lefroy J, Watling C, Teunissen PW, et al. Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:284–99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Minehart RD, Rudolph J, Pian-Smith MCM, et al. Improving faculty feedback to resident trainees during a simulated case: a randomized, controlled trial of an educational intervention. Anesthesiology. 2014;120:160–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Rahman I, Boger P, Patel P. OC-012 The effect of mental workload experienced during colonoscopy on endoscopists performance. Gut. 2016;65:A9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. • Sewell JL, Boscardin CK, Young JQ, et al. Learner, patient, and supervisor features are associated with different types of cognitive load during procedural skills training: implications for teaching and instructional design. Acad Med. 2017;92:1622–31. This survey based study identifies factors associated with cognitive load during colonoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Valori RM, Damery S, Gavin DR, et al. A new composite measure of colonoscopy: the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI). Endoscopy. 2018;50:40–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Siau K, Hodson J, Ward S et al. JAG provisional colonoscopy certification: does this sufficiently equip trainees with competencies in diagnostic colonoscopy? Presented at: Welsh Association of GI Endoscopy (WAGE); 2018; Cardiff.

  95. Jones RP, Stylianides NA, Robertson AG, et al. National survey on endoscopy training in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97:386–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Siau K, Kuwai T, Ishaq S. Analysis of learning curves in gastroscopy training: the need for composite measures for defining competence. Gut 2017.

  97. Kim DH, Park SJ, Cheon JH, et al. Does a pre-training program influence colonoscopy proficiency during fellowship? PLoS One. 2016;11:e0164360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK

    Keith Siau MBChB, MRCP

  2. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK

    Keith Siau MBChB, MRCP, Neil D Hawkes MD, FRCP & Paul Dunckley MD, FRCP

  3. Department of Gastroenterology, Cwm Taf University Health Board, Llantrisant, UK

    Neil D Hawkes MD, FRCP

  4. Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK

    Paul Dunckley MD, FRCP

Authors
  1. Keith Siau MBChB, MRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neil D Hawkes MD, FRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Dunckley MD, FRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Siau MBChB, MRCP.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Keith Siau reports personal fees from the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, during the conduct of the study. Neil Hawkes reports non-financial support from Gastro-e-Learn, during the conduct of the study. Keith Siau, Neil Hawkes, and Paul Dunckley declare no other conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Endoscopy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siau, K., Hawkes, N.D. & Dunckley, P. Training in Endoscopy. Curr Treat Options Gastro 16, 345–361 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-018-0191-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-018-0191-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation