Status of Competency-Based Medical Education in Endoscopy Training: A Nationwide Survey of US ACGME-Accredited Gastroenterology Training Programs.

Patel SG, Keswani R, Elta G, Saini S, Menard-Katcher P, Del Valle J, Hosford L, Myers A, Ahnen D, Schoenfeld P, Wani S. Status of Competency-Based Medical Education in Endoscopy Training: A Nationwide Survey of US ACGME-Accredited Gastroenterology Training Programs. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2015 Jul 1; 110(7):956-62.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 09-213 – Medical Decision-Making Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) emphasizes the importance of medical trainees meeting specific performance benchmarks and demonstrating readiness for unsupervised practice. The aim of this study was to examine the readiness of Gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs for competency-based evaluation in endoscopic procedural training. METHODS: ACGME-accredited GI program directors (PDs) and GI trainees nationwide completed an online survey of domains relevant to endoscopy training and competency assessment. Participants were queried about current methods and perceived quality of endoscopy training and assessment of competence. Participants were also queried about factors deemed important in endoscopy competence assessment. Five-point Likert items were analyzed as continuous variables by an independent t-test and ?(2)-test was used for comparison of proportions. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 64% (94/148) for PDs and 47% (546/1,167) for trainees. Twenty-three percent of surveyed PDs reported that they do not have a formal endoscopy curriculum. PDs placed less importance (1—very important to 5—very unimportant) on endoscopy volume (1.57 vs. 1.18, P < 0.001), adenoma detection rate (2.00 vs. 1.53, P < 0.001), and withdrawal times (1.96 vs. 1.68, P = 0.009) in determining endoscopy competence compared with trainees. A majority of PDs report that competence is assessed by procedure volume (85%) and teaching attending evaluations (96%). Only a minority of programs use skills assessment tools (30%) or specific quality metrics (28%). Specific competencies are mostly assessed by individual teaching attending feedback as opposed to official documentation or feedback from a PD. PDs rate the overall quality of their endoscopy training and assessment of competence as better than overall ratings by trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of PDs and trainees nationwide believe that measuring specific metrics is important in determining endoscopy competence, most programs still rely on procedure volume and subjective attending evaluations to determine overall competence. As medical training transitions from an apprenticeship model to competency-based education, there is a need for improved endoscopy curricula which are better suited to demonstrate readiness for unsupervised practice.