PWE-428 Oesophageal ph/manometry – the trainees’ perspective

Stasinos, Ioannis; Birdi, S; Jayakumar, Saumya; Jayasundera, J; Sattianayagam, Prayman T.

doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309861.874

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2,3 By contrast in the UK, where the core Gastroenterology training curriculum lacks minimum standards in GI motility, training opportunities appear to be virtually non-existent and trainees have reported a worrying lack of basic knowledge such as the indications for commonly requested investigations. 4 Consistent with the observations of the authors, 1 data from a large national survey among GI clinicians and Physiologists in the UK and Ireland 5 has identified deficiencies in knowledge, 6 a marked variation in practice and quality in GI motility services, further highlighting the implications of the current lack of CBME. The UK survey of 313 respondents representing 98 motility labs has shown that GI clinician input in motility study reporting is infrequent and that therapeutic recommendations are provided by fewer than half of those who report studies.…”

Section: Competency Based Medical Education In Gastrointestinal Motilsupporting

confidence: 60%

Competency based medical education in gastrointestinal motility—the UK perspective

Vasant

Radhakrishnan

2016

Neurogastroenterology Motil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Competency Based Medical Education In Gastrointestinal Motilsupporting

confidence: 60%

Competency based medical education in gastrointestinal motility—the UK perspective

Vasant

Radhakrishnan

2016

Neurogastroenterology Motil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recent surveys support our conclusions by highlighting the consequences of deficiencies in NGM training, whereby a majority of GI clinicians in UK are unable to independently interpret motility studies, and often struggle to provide therapeutic recommendations [7,8,9,15]. Consequently, there is little doubt that training in NGM would be invaluable for all GI trainees, as well as improve the quality of patient care.…”

Section: Expert Commentarysupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Despite this, most gastroenterologists are not adequately trained in the evaluation and management of these disorders [4,5,6]. Recent surveys in the UK have highlighted this problem and the need to improve training [7,8,9]. In the USA, a defined curriculum outlines the standards for basic and advanced training in gastrointestinal motility [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apprenticeship-based training in neurogastroenterology and motility

Vasant

Sharma

Bhagatwala

et al. 2017

Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although neurogastroenterology and motility (NGM) disorders affect 50% of patients seen in clinics, many gastroenterologists receive limited NGM training. One-month apprenticeship-based NGM training has been provided at ten centers in the USA for a decade, however, outcomes of this training are unclear. Our goal was to describe the effectiveness of this program from a trainees perspective. Areas covered: We describe the training model, learning experiences, and outcomes of one-month apprenticeship-based training in NGM at a center of excellence, using a detailed individual observer account and data from 12 consecutive trainees that completed the program. During a one-month training period, 302 procedures including; breath tests (BT) n = 132, anorectal manometry (ARM) n = 29 and esophageal manometry (EM) n = 28, were performed. Post-training, all trainees (n = 12) knew indications for motility tests, and the majority achieved independence in basic interpretation of BT, EM and ARM. Additionally, in a multiple-choice NGM written-test paper, trainees achieved significant improvements in test scores post-training (P = 0.003). Expert commentary: One-month training at a high-volume center can facilitate rapid learning of NGM and the indications, basic interpretation and utility of motility tests. Trainees demonstrate significant independence, and this training model provides an ideal platform for those interested in sub-specialty NGM.

show abstract

“…1 However, only about one-quarter of GI fellowship programs offer meaningful motility training, and there exists considerable variability in training, even among larger motility centers. [2][3][4] The physiology of GI motility is complex, and many general gastroenterologists may feel less comfortable teaching GI motility as compared with other topics, particularly the details of how to interpret and act on the results of motility testing. Fellows may interpret their attendings' reticence to teach as a hidden curriculum message, implying that GI motility is relevant only to motility experts and not to general gastroenterologists.…”

Section: G Astrointestinalmentioning

confidence: 99%