Trial Evaluating Endoscopy Competence Among Gastroenterology Trainees in the Era of the Next Accreditation System. (EnCompAS)

August 13, 2021 updated by: University of Colorado, Denver

A Prospective Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Endoscopy Competence Among Gastroenterology Trainees in the Era of the Next Accreditation System.

Hypothesis: ACE (The Assessment in Competency in Endoscopy Tool) tool for colonoscopy and EGD (Esophagogastroduodenoscopy) allows for reliable standardized learning curves, competency benchmarks, and creation of a centralized database that compares trainee performance amongst peers. Trainees receiving quarterly learning curves achieve competence in endoscopic procedures at a faster rate (ie less procedures) compared to trainees receiving usual feedback on endoscopic performance as established by their respective GI (gastrointestinal) fellowship program.

Aims: To compare the number of procedures necessary to achieve competence in EGD and colonoscopy between trainees receiving learning curve performance feedback every three months in addition to standard feedback versus trainees receiving annual learning curve performance feedback in addition to standard feedback for these endoscopic procedures. To demonstrate the feasibility of development and adoption of a centralized database that would allow program directors and general GI trainees to generate performance reports in relation to national peers to provide real-time targeted performance feedback during training and evaluate trainee and GI fellowship program directors predictors of competence.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

There has been an increasing emphasis on standardizing competency assessment and demonstrating readiness for independent practice as medical training transitions from an apprenticeship model to competency based medical education (CBME). The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) replaced their long-standing reporting system in 2014 with the Next Accreditation System (NAS). For Gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs (GIFPs), this includes assessing and documenting competence in basic endoscopic procedures [esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)] in a continuous fashion. For colonoscopy, the prior minimum threshold of 140 procedures after which competence can be assessed was based on surrogates of competence such as cecal intubation rate, with limited assessment of technical and cognitive skills required to perform high-quality endoscopic examination. Recent data has demonstrated wide variability in trainee learning curves, hence emphasis needs to be shifted away from the volume of procedures performed to independent performance of well-defined metrics. Tools with comprehensive assessment of motor and cognitive abilities have been developed. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) endorsed the assessment of competence in endoscopy tool (ACE) designed to help GIFPs facilitate implementation of the NAS requirements. While the ACE tool for EGD has yet to be validated, Sedlack and colleagues recently validated the ACE tool in colonoscopy. Multicenter prospective data are needed to help guide development of CBME that define learning curves in colonoscopy and EGD and generate a centralized database which will allow programs to provide individualized feedback and follow trainee performance longitudinally throughout training.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
157

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 85 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Attendings and trainees in GI Fellowship Program

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Attendings and trainees in GI Fellowship Program

Exclusion Criteria:

  • N/A

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Cohort
  • Time Perspectives: Prospective

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort

Group / Cohort

A group or subgroup of participants in an observational study that is assessed for biomedical or health outcomes.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Quarterly Feedback
In addition to each center's traditional endoscopic feedback for trainees, centers/trainees will receive objective feedback every 3-months on trainee overall performance including learning curves on ACE tool performance, performance relative to de-identified anonymous peers on each of the individual skills (e.g. fine tip control), and the global assessment for technical and cognitive skill achievement. For those skills which are not advanced/superior - trainees will additionally receive links to online didactic videos which teach these skills.
Other: Quarterly Feedback
Learning curves received quarterly vs. annually
Annual Feedback
In addition to each center's traditional endoscopic feedback for trainees, centers/trainees will receive learning curves at the end of each training year. Learning curves, relative to de-identified anonymous peers will be provided to program directors annually (June).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
ACE Tool Validation
Time Frame: 3 years
Primary Aim: Using the ACE tool with a comprehensive electronic data collection and reporting system, the primary aim of this study is to compare the number of procedures necessary to achieve competence in EGD and colonoscopy between trainees receiving learning curve performance feedback every three months in addition to standard feedback as provided by supervising attendings at a given institution versus trainees receiving annual learning curve performance feedback in addition to standard feedback for these endoscopic procedures as provided by supervising attendings at a given institution.
3 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Development of Centralized Performance Database
Time Frame: 3 years
To demonstrate the feasibility of development and adoption of a centralized database that would allow program directors and general GI trainees to generate performance reports in relation to national peers to provide real-time targeted performance feedback during training and evaluate trainee and GIFP predictors of competence.
3 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University of Colorado, Denver

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Washington University School of Medicine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of Miami
Northwestern University
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Emory University
University of California, Irvine
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
University of South Alabama
State University of New York - Downstate Medical Center
New York Medical College
Rush University
Ochsner Health System
Drexel University College of Medicine
University of North Carolina
Advocate Lutheran General Hospital
St. John Providence Health System

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
July 1, 2016

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
June 15, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
June 15, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
August 29, 2016

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 31, 2016

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 7, 2016

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
August 17, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 13, 2021

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
August 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 16-0782

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Competency in General Endoscopic Surgical Procedures

Clinical Trials on Quarterly Feedback

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings