V. Ch, rasekhara, R. Shinohara, K. Dunbar, Monica Riegert, Eric Tomakin, G. Mullin
{"title":"Characterizing the Learning Curve and Accuracy of Wireless Capsule Endoscopy Interpretation amongst Digestive Healthcare Practitioners","authors":"V. Ch, rasekhara, R. Shinohara, K. Dunbar, Monica Riegert, Eric Tomakin, G. Mullin","doi":"10.4172/2472-1891.100016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Goals: To prospectively evaluate the accuracy and learning curve of trainees to interpret wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE). \nBackground: Trainees and mid-level providers are often used as first-line readers to earmark WCE images that are subsequently reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist. This practice has been demonstrated to be cost-effective and highly accurate, but the learning curve of trainees and physician extenders has not been well described. \nStudy: Each WCE trainee individually reviewed and interpreted 48 fulllength de-identified WCE studies and recorded significant findings, time required to interpret each study, and confidence of the interpretation. After every 10 studies, each trainee reviewed WCE findings with the expert. The first 10 studies were considered the training period with the next 19 studies considered study period 1 and last 19 studies considered study period 2. Reading times were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results: The median time for WCE interpretation improved significantly from the training period to the first study period for each trainee; GI fellow (41 min vs. 21 min, p<0.002), CRNP fellow (67 min vs. 33 min, p<0.002), RN (82 min vs. 30 min, p<0.001). Median reading times appeared to plateau for the GI fellow and CRNP fellow after 10 and 20-25 studies, respectively. This finding suggests that additional studies are unlikely to improve reading efficiency. The GI nurse never plateaus during the study. Confidence improved for all trainees during the study; however, in the final study period, the GI fellow reported higher confidence than the CRNP fellow, who reported higher confidence than the GI nurse. After the training period of 10 capsule studies, the MD fellow was found to have a higher sensitivity (89%), specificity (95%) and accuracy (92%) compared to other trainees. \nConclusion: Reading time, self-reported confidence, and accuracy appear to be good markers for assessing learning. Twenty-five capsule studies appear to be sufficient for trainees enrolled in a GI fellowship program who are actively performing endoscopy; however physician extenders who do not perform endoscopy appear to require interpretation of more than 25 WCE studies before adequate proficiency is achieved.","PeriodicalId":355284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Digestive Diseases","volume":"196 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Digestive Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-1891.100016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Goals: To prospectively evaluate the accuracy and learning curve of trainees to interpret wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE).
Background: Trainees and mid-level providers are often used as first-line readers to earmark WCE images that are subsequently reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist. This practice has been demonstrated to be cost-effective and highly accurate, but the learning curve of trainees and physician extenders has not been well described.
Study: Each WCE trainee individually reviewed and interpreted 48 fulllength de-identified WCE studies and recorded significant findings, time required to interpret each study, and confidence of the interpretation. After every 10 studies, each trainee reviewed WCE findings with the expert. The first 10 studies were considered the training period with the next 19 studies considered study period 1 and last 19 studies considered study period 2. Reading times were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results: The median time for WCE interpretation improved significantly from the training period to the first study period for each trainee; GI fellow (41 min vs. 21 min, p<0.002), CRNP fellow (67 min vs. 33 min, p<0.002), RN (82 min vs. 30 min, p<0.001). Median reading times appeared to plateau for the GI fellow and CRNP fellow after 10 and 20-25 studies, respectively. This finding suggests that additional studies are unlikely to improve reading efficiency. The GI nurse never plateaus during the study. Confidence improved for all trainees during the study; however, in the final study period, the GI fellow reported higher confidence than the CRNP fellow, who reported higher confidence than the GI nurse. After the training period of 10 capsule studies, the MD fellow was found to have a higher sensitivity (89%), specificity (95%) and accuracy (92%) compared to other trainees.
Conclusion: Reading time, self-reported confidence, and accuracy appear to be good markers for assessing learning. Twenty-five capsule studies appear to be sufficient for trainees enrolled in a GI fellowship program who are actively performing endoscopy; however physician extenders who do not perform endoscopy appear to require interpretation of more than 25 WCE studies before adequate proficiency is achieved.
目的:前瞻性评价学员解读无线胶囊内镜(WCE)的准确性和学习曲线。背景:受训人员和中级医生经常作为第一线阅读者指定WCE图像,随后由主治胃肠病学家审查。这种做法已被证明具有成本效益和高度准确性,但培训生和医师扩展者的学习曲线尚未得到很好的描述。研究:每个WCE学员单独审查和解释了48个完整的未识别的WCE研究,并记录了重要的发现、解释每个研究所需的时间和解释的置信度。每10项研究后,每位受训人员与专家一起回顾WCE结果。前10项研究被认为是训练期,接下来的19项研究被认为是研究期1,后19项研究被认为是研究期2。阅读时间采用Wilcoxon秩和检验进行比较。结果:每位学员的WCE口译中位时间从训练期到第一个学习期显著提高;GI患者(41 min vs. 21 min, p<0.002), CRNP患者(67 min vs. 33 min, p<0.002), RN患者(82 min vs. 30 min, p<0.001)。GI组和CRNP组的中位阅读时间分别在10次和20-25次研究后趋于平稳。这一发现表明,额外的研究不太可能提高阅读效率。GI护士在研究过程中从未停滞不前。在学习过程中,所有学员的信心都有所提高;然而,在最后的研究期间,GI研究员报告的信心高于CRNP研究员,CRNP研究员报告的信心高于GI护士。经过10个胶囊研究的训练期后,发现MD研究员与其他受训者相比具有更高的灵敏度(89%),特异性(95%)和准确性(92%)。结论:阅读时间、自我报告的自信和准确性似乎是评估学习的良好指标。25个胶囊研究似乎足以满足GI奖学金项目中积极进行内窥镜检查的受训者;然而,不进行内窥镜检查的医师似乎需要解释25个以上的WCE研究才能达到足够的熟练程度。