GAPS-EUS: a new and reliable tool for the assessment of basic skills and performance in EUS among endosonography trainees

Per Hedenström, Giovanni Marasco, Leonardo Henry Eusebi, Bjorn Lindkvist, Riadh Sadik, Per Hedenström, Giovanni Marasco, Leonardo Henry Eusebi, Bjorn Lindkvist, Riadh Sadik

Abstract

Objective: Endosonography (EUS) is a useful but complex diagnostic modality which requires advanced endoscopy training and guidance by a supervisor. Since learning curves vary among individuals, assessment of the actual competence among EUS trainees is important.

Design/methods: We designed a novel assessment tool entitled Global Assessment of Performance and Skills in EUS (GAPS-EUS) for assessing skills among EUS trainees. Five quality indicators were marked on a five-grade scale by the supervisor (Observer Score) and by the trainee (Trainee Score). Trainees were included in two high-volume centres (Gothenburg, Sweden, and Bologna, Italy). Outcomes were feasibility, patient safety, reliability, and validity of GAPS-EUS in trainee-performed EUS procedures.

Results: Twenty-two EUS-trainees were assessed in a total of 157 EUS procedures with a completion rate of 157/157 (100 %) and a patient adverse event rate of 2/157 (1.3 %; gastroenteritis n=1, fever n=1). GAPS-EUS showed a high measurement reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient=0.87) and a high inter-rater reliability comparing the supervisor and the trainee (r=0.83, r2=0.69, p<0.001). The construct of GAPS-EUS was verified by comparing low-level and high-level performance procedures and the content validity by recording that the EUS-FNA manoeuvre resulted in a lower score than other aspects of EUS 3.07 (95% CI 2.91 to 3.23) vs 3.51 (95% CI 3.37 to 3.65) (p<0.001). External validity was confirmed via similar findings in both centres.

Conclusion: GAPS-EUS is an easy-to-use and reliable tool with a recorded high validity for the assessment of competence among trainees in EUS. It can be recommended to centres involved in the education of future endosonographers.

Trial registration number: NCT02455570.

Keywords: endoscopic procedures; endoscopic ultrasonography; gastrointestinal neoplasia; surgical training.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study enrolment process. EUS, endosonography.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) The Observer Score of the first GAPS-EUS assessment in the 3 FTs and in the 19 visiting trainees in relation to the EUS experience among these 22 trainees as measured as the total number of EUS examinations previously performed (under supervision or independently). (B) A bar chart showing the Observer Score of the 92 GAPS-EUS assessments in FT1 in consecutive order and in groups of 10. The error bars symbolise the 95% CIs. (C–E) Three line diagrams showing Observer Score A (C, blue line), Observer Score B (D, red line), and Observer Score C (E, green line) in the 92 consecutive GAPS-EUS assessments of FT1. EUS, endosonography; FT, fellowship trainee; GAPS-EUS, Global Assessment of Performance and Skills in EUS.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland-Altman plot showing the difference of Trainee Score–Observer Score on the Y-axis, including the mean value of all scores as a red line, and the Compound Score (mean of Trainee Score and Observer Score) on the X-axis. The upper and the lower black lines depict the +2 SD and the −2 SD.

References

    1. Dumonceau J-M, Deprez PH, Jenssen C, et al. . Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline - Updated January 2017. Endoscopy 2017;49:695–714. 10.1055/s-0043-109021
    1. ASGE guidelines for clinical application. methods of privileging for new technology in gastrointestinal endoscopy. American Society for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:899–900. 10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70190-2
    1. 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;13:1318–25. 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.11.008
    1. Domagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L, et al. . Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy 2018;50:1116–27. 10.1055/a-0749-8767
    1. Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J, et al. . Quality indicators for EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:67–80. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.054
    1. Sedlack RE, Coyle WJ, ACE Research Group . Assessment of competency in endoscopy: establishing and validating generalizable competency benchmarks for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:516–23. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.041
    1. Eisen GM, Dominitz JA, Faigel DO, et al. . Guidelines for credentialing and granting privileges for endoscopic ultrasound. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:811–4. 10.1016/S0016-5107(01)70082-X
    1. Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B, et al. . Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012;44:190–206. 10.1055/s-0031-1291543
    1. Van Dam J, Brady PG, Freeman M, et al. . Guidelines for training in electronic ultrasound: guidelines for clinical application. from the ASGE. American Society for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:829–33. 10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70312-3
    1. Meenan J, Anderson S, Tsang S, et al. . Training in radial EUS: what is the best approach and is there a role for the nurse endoscopist? Endoscopy 2003;35:1020–3. 10.1055/s-2003-44587
    1. Hedenström P, Sadik R. The assessment of endosonographers in training. World J Clin Cases 2018;6:735–44. 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i14.735
    1. Wani S, Coté GA, Keswani R, et al. . Learning curves for EUS by using cumulative sum analysis: implications for American Society for gastrointestinal endoscopy recommendations for training. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;77:558–65. 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.012
    1. 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;15:1758–67. 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.012
    1. Hedenström P, Lindkvist B, Sadik R. Mo1498 Global Assessment of EUS Performance Skills (GEUSP) - a New Tool and Approach to Objectify and Measure the Learning Curve and Technical Skills of Endosonographists. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:AB442. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.03.828
    1. 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. Surg Endosc 2010;24:1834–41. 10.1007/s00464-010-0882-8
    1. Bolliger M, Kroehnert J-A, Molineus F, et al. . Experiences with the standardized classification of surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo) in general surgery patients. Eur Surg 2018;50:256–61. 10.1007/s10353-018-0551-z
    1. Wani S, Keswani RN, Han S, et al. . Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, From Training Through Independent Practice. Gastroenterology 2018;155:1483–94. 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.024
    1. Sedlack RE. The Mayo colonoscopy skills assessment tool: validation of a unique instrument to assess colonoscopy skills in trainees. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1125–33. 10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.001
    1. Ehrlinger J, Johnson K, Banner M, et al. . Why the unskilled are Unaware: further explorations of (absent) Self-Insight among the incompetent. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2008;105:98–121. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002
    1. Motta M, Callaghan T, Sylvester S. Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Soc Sci Med 2018;211:274–81. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.032
    1. Rahmani M. Medical Trainees and the Dunning-Kruger Effect: When They Don't Know What They Don't Know. J Grad Med Educ 2020;12:532–4. 10.4300/JGME-D-20-00134.1
    1. Harewood GC, Wiersema LM, Halling AC, et al. . Influence of EUS training and pathology interpretation on accuracy of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:669–73. 10.1067/mge.2002.123419
    1. Coté GA, Hovis CE, Kohlmeier C, et al. . Training in EUS-Guided fine needle aspiration: safety and diagnostic yield of attending supervised, Trainee-Directed FNA from the onset of training. Diagn Ther Endosc 2011;2011:1–5. 10.1155/2011/378540
    1. Mertz H, Gautam S. The learning curve for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:33–7. 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02028-5
    1. Mangas-Sanjuan C, Santana E, Cubiella J, et al. . Variation in colonoscopy performance measures according to procedure indication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:1216–23. 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.035

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera