Variation in aptitude of trainees in endoscopic ultrasonography, based on cumulative sum analysis

Sachin Wani*, Matthew Hall, Rajesh N. Keswani, Harry R. Aslanian, Brenna Casey, Rebecca Burbridge, Amitabh Chak, Ann M. Chen, Gregory Cote, Steven A. Edmundowicz, Ashley L. Faulx, Thomas G. Hollander, Linda S. Lee, Daniel Mullady, Faris Murad, V. Raman Muthusamy, Patrick R. Pfau, James M. Scheiman, Jeffrey Tokar, Mihir S. WaghRabindra Watson, Dayna Early

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

38 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background & Aims: Studies have reported substantial variation in the competency of advanced endoscopy trainees, indicating a need for more supervised training in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We used a standardized, validated, data collection tool to evaluate learning curves and measure competency in EUS among trainees at multiple centers. Methods: In a prospective study performed at 15 centers, 17 trainees with no prior EUS experience were evaluated by experienced attending endosonographers at the 25th and then every 10th upper EUS examination, over a 12-month training period. A standardized data collection form was used (using a 5-point scoring system) to grade the EUS examination. Cumulative sum analysis was applied to produce a learning curve for each trainee; it tracked the overall performance based on median scores at different stations and also at each station. Competency was defined by a median score of 1, with acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 10% and 20%, respectively. Results: Twelve trainees were included in the final analysis. Each of the trainees performed 265 to 540 EUS examinations (total, 4257 examinations). There was a large amount of variation in their learning curves: 2 trainees crossed the threshold for acceptable performance (at cases 225 and 245), 2 trainees had a trend toward acceptable performance (after 289 and 355 cases) but required continued observation, and 8 trainees needed additional training and observation. Similar results were observed at individual stations. Conclusions: A specific case load does not ensure competency in EUS; 225 cases should be considered the minimum caseload for training because we found that no trainee achieved competency before this point. Ongoing training should be provided for trainees until competency is confirmed using objective measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1318-1325.e2
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume13
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

Keywords

  • Competency
  • Cumulative sum analysis
  • RATE US study
  • Training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Variation in aptitude of trainees in endoscopic ultrasonography, based on cumulative sum analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this