No abstract

Objective: To systematically evaluate the prevalence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: In this systematic review, we ascertained the prevalence and types of FCOI for CPGs from January 1, 1980, to March 3, 2019. The primary outcome was the prevalence of FCOI among authors of CPGs. FCOI disclosures were compared between medical subspecialties and societies producing CPGs. Results: Among the 37 studies including 14,764 total guideline authors, 45% had at least one FCOI. The prevalence of FCOI per study ranged from 6% to 100%. More authors had FCOI involving general payments (39%) compared with research payments (29%). Oncology, neurology, and gastroenterology had the highest prevalence of FCOI compared with other medical specialties. Among the 8 studies that included the monetary values in US dollars of FCOI, average payments per author ranged from $578 to $242,300. Among the 10 studies that included data on undisclosed FCOI, 32% of authors had undisclosed industry payments. Conclusion: There are numerous FCOI among authors of CPGs, many of which are undisclosed. Our study found a significant difference in FCOI prevalence based on types of FCOI and CPG sponsor society. Additional research is required to quantify the implications of FCOI on clinical judgment and patient care.

Background and Aims Non‐technical skills (NTS), involving cognitive, social and interpersonal skills that complement technical skills, are important for the completion of safe and efficient procedures. We investigated the impact of a simulation‐based curriculum with dedicated NTS training on novice endoscopists’ performance of clinical colonoscopies. Methods A single‐blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at a single center. Novice endoscopists were randomized to a control curriculum or a NTS curriculum. The control curriculum involved a didactic session, virtual reality (VR) simulator colonoscopy training, and integrated scenario practice using a VR simulator, a standardized patient, and endoscopy nurse. Feedback and training were provided by experienced endoscopists. The NTS curriculum group received similar training that included a small‐group session on NTS, feedback targeting NTS, and access to a self‐reflective NTS checklist. The primary outcome was performance during two clinical colonoscopies, assessed using the Joint Advisory Group Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG DOPS) tool. Results Thirty‐nine participants completed the study. The NTS group (n = 21) had superior clinical performance during their first (P < 0.001) and second clinical colonoscopies (P < .0.001), compared to the control group (n = 18). The NTS group performed significantly better on the VR simulator (P < 0.05) and in the integrated scenario (P < 0.05). Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that dedicated NTS training led to improved performance of clinical colonoscopies among novices.

Background: Assessment tools are essential for endoscopy training, required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence. We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity. Methods: We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until April 8, 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence from the five sources (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results: From 10,841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1-15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5-11.5 (maximum score 14.5). Conclusions: The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared to other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on use of these tools in credentialing examinations.

In gastrointestinal endoscopy, simulation-based training can help endoscopists acquire new skills and accelerate the learning curve. Simulation creates an ideal environment for trainees, where they can practice specific skills, perform cases at their own pace, and make mistakes with no risk to patients. Educators also benefit from the use of simulators, as they can structure training according to learner needs and focus solely on the trainee. Not all simulation-based training, however, is effective. To maximize benefits from this instructional modality, educators must be conscious of learners’ needs, the potential benefits of training, and associated costs. Simulation should be integrated into training in a manner that is grounded in educational theory and empirical data. In this review, we focus on four best practices in simulation-based education: deliberate practice with mastery learning, feedback and debriefing, contextual learning, and innovative educational strategies. For each topic, we provide definitions, supporting evidence, and practical tips for implementation.