Rapid Assessment of Trainee Endoscopy Skills (RATES) Study
NCT ID: NCT02247115
Last Updated: 2017-03-20
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
36 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2014-07-31
2016-11-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Hypothesis: The central hypothesis is that a validated EUS and ERCP competency assessment tool will allow for reliable and generalizable standardized learning curves, competency benchmarks and creation of a centralized national database that compares a trainee's performance amongst peers.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Rapid Assessment of Trainee Endoscopy Skills (RATES) Study Two
NCT02509416
Effect of Different Length of Time for Trainees to Attempt Cannulation on Success Rate of Selective Cannulation During hands-on ERCP Training
NCT01851226
Fast-tracking ERCP Learning: Does Training on a Mechanical Simulator Improve Trainee's Clinical Performance?
NCT05533944
ESGE-Quality Improvement in Endoscopy: ERCP
NCT06727851
Refeeding in Post-ERCP Pancreatitis
NCT04750044
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Learning curves and competence in EUS: EUS is a vital tool in the diagnosis and staging of gastrointestinal and certain non-gastrointestinal malignancies and diseases. EUS is operator dependent and training in EUS requires the development of technical and cognitive skills beyond that required for standard endoscopic procedures. It is intuitive that the quality of EUS in provision of patient care is directly proportional to the training, skill and experience of the endosonographer. Unfortunately, the intensity and length of training and minimum number of procedures required, requisite curriculum and extent of theoretical learning, and methodology to define competence are not well defined. There are limited data on learning curves in EUS imaging. Based on expert opinion, the ACGME recommends a minimum of 150 total supervised procedures, 75 of which have a pancreatobiliary indication and 50 cases of fine needle aspiration (FNA) (25 of which are pancreatic FNA) before competency can be determined.
Similar guidelines were recently proposed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. However, these guidelines have not been validated. This does not account for the different rates at which people learn and in fact, many experts believe that the majority of trainees will require double the number of proposed procedures to achieve competency in EUS.
Learning curves and competence in ERCP: ERCP is an effective modality in the evaluation and management of pancreatobiliary diseases. This procedure can be technically demanding and associated with a wide range of adverse events. Technically failed ERCP may result in complications, need for additional procedures and their associated costs. Similar to EUS, ERCP is operator dependent and requires acquisition of certain technical and cognitive skills. There are limited data on learning curves and competence in ERCP, a cannulation rate of \>80% (with some suggesting \>90%) has been considered a surrogate for trainee competency. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends a minimum of 180 total procedures, the majority of which are therapeutic before competency can be achieved. However, this threshold is based predominantly on biliary cannulation success rate and does not take into account procedure complexity and the different rates at which people learn. It is also important to note that none of the previous studies have evaluated learning curves and competency in other quality indicators such as successful stone extraction, traversing and dilating a stricture, stent placement to name a few.
Competency assessment tools: Previous competency assessment tools have focused primarily on a limited number of motor skills involved in EUS and ERCP with no procedure-related cognitive skill assessment. The investigators have designed a prospective comprehensive competency assessment tool using validated benchmarks to define competency thresholds. The EUS and ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (TEESAT) can be used in a continuous fashion throughout the duration of training to grade technical and cognitive skills in EUS and ERCP in a balanced manner.
Significance, Innovation and Impact on Training and Education With the launch of the ACGME's NAS, advanced endoscopy training programs should utilize competency based medical education and demonstrate that advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) have attained the technical and cognitive skills required for safe and effective unsupervised practice in advanced endoscopy. Based on the investigators research, the investigators can draw two conclusions: a) individuals in training in any technical procedure acquire skills at different rates and emphasis needs to be shifted away from the number of procedures performed to performance metrics with defined and validated competency thresholds of performance and b) current guidelines of performing 150 EUS and 180 ERCPs are inadequate to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP, respectively. With the expanding indications and applications of EUS and ERCP and establishment of a number of "third tier" training programs in advanced endoscopy, standardization of the performance of EUS and ERCP and definition of competence and training among AETs is of paramount importance. The potential impacts of this study's results are multifold: i) facilitate the ability of training programs to evolve with the new ACGME/NAS reporting requirements, (ii) help program directors/trainers and trainees identify specific skill deficiencies in training and allowing for tailored, individualized remediation, (iii) create a centralized national database that would allow generation of "on-demand" detailed reports on how individual trainees are progressing compared with their peers across the nation, (iv) establish reliable and generalizable standardized learning curves (milestones) and competency benchmarks that national GI societies and training programs can use to develop credentialing guidelines.
APPROACH AND RESEARCH STRATEGY Setting and Subject Recruitment: Program directors and AETs at all advanced endoscopy programs registered with the ASGE will be invited to participate in this study and will be considered as study participants. AETs will complete a questionnaire to determine baseline characteristics and prior experience with EUS and ERCP. AETs' prior experience with EUS and ERCP will not be an exclusion criterion for this study.
Competency-assessment tool: TEESAT, a tool designed for competency assessment, will be used in a continuous fashion throughout the duration of training to grade technical and cognitive skills in EUS and ERCP. The investigators have demonstrated he feasibility and validity of this tool in previous studies.3-5 This tool uses a 4-point scoring system: 1-no assistance, 2-achieves with minimal verbal cues, 3-multiple verbal cues or hands on assistance needed, 4-unable to complete. Setting these anchors for specifics skills and behaviors for what is expected to achieve each score will ensure that the data collected are reproducible from one evaluator to the next. Technical aspects during EUS exams include grading of individual EUS stations and technical success in EUS-FNA. Cognitive aspects include identification of lesion of interest, appropriate classification of malignant tumors (TNM) staging characterization of subepithelial lesions. Technical aspects during biliary/pancreatic ERCP include endpoints such as intubation, achieving the short position, identification of the papilla, cannulation of desired duct, sphincterotomy, stone removal and stent placement. Cognitive aspects will include clear demonstration of indication of the procedure, appropriate use of fluoroscopy and logical plan based on cholangiogram/pancreatogram findings. This tool includes documentation of immediate and post-procedure complications. Grading protocol: All AETs will be introduced to both the cognitive and technical aspects of EUS and ERCP procedures at the onset of training. Although TEESAT is self-explanatory, the program directors at each center will ensure that the AETs and trainers are familiar with TEESAT's specific assessment parameters and score explanations. After completion of 25 hands-on EUS and ERCP exams, AETs will be graded on every ERCP and 3rd EUS exam by attending endoscopists (trainers) at each center. This frequency of grading was chosen based on the investigators pilot data. Grading of every 3rd EUS exam as opposed to every exam was chosen given the fairly homogenous population undergoing EUS compared to ERCP. Procedures that the AETs have no hands-on participation will be excluded for grading. If the exam eligible for grading is an incomplete procedure for reasons such as medical instability, this exam will not be used for grading. Trainers will complete the assessment immediately after the procedure.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
85 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Harvard Medical School (HMS and HSDM)
OTHER
Brigham and Women's Hospital
OTHER
Carolinas Medical Center
OTHER
Columbia University
OTHER
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
OTHER
Virginia Mason Hospital/Medical Center
OTHER
Geisinger Clinic
OTHER
Henry Ford Hospital
OTHER
Indiana University
OTHER
Johns Hopkins University
OTHER
Mayo Clinic
OTHER
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute
OTHER
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
OTHER
New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital
OTHER
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
OTHER
The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston
OTHER
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
OTHER
Fox Chase Cancer Center
OTHER
University of California, Los Angeles
OTHER
University of Kansas Medical Center
OTHER
University of Texas
OTHER
University of Virginia
OTHER
University of Wisconsin, Madison
OTHER
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
OTHER
Washington University School of Medicine
OTHER
Ohio State University
OTHER
University of Colorado, Denver
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Sachin Wani, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Colorado, Denver
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
14-0604
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.