How long does it take to learn endoscopy?☆,☆☆,★

The increased focus on endoscopic quality has highlighted the need to ensure that endoscopists are competent to perform the procedures. Institutions that grant endoscopic privileges must assess endoscopists' credentials as well as their competence for individual types of endoscopy through a peer review process that may also include proctoring. In the event that minimal competence cannot be assured, retraining and/or restriction of privileges may be required.

Background: Much attention has been focused on the competence to perform endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of procedure experience on patient outcomes after endoscopic pancreatic fluid collection drainage.

Methods: Outcomes for consecutive patients with symptoms from pancreatic fluid collections who were referred for endoscopic transmural and/or transpapillary drainage were analyzed retrospectively. Collections were classified as acute pseudocyst, chronic pseudocyst, and pancreatic necrosis. To assess the impact of endoscopist experience, outcomes for patients who underwent the first 20 procedures were compared with those for patients who had subsequent procedures.

Results: In total, 175 patients underwent pancreatic fluid collection drainage; 40 (23%) acute pseudocyst, 78 (44%) chronic pseudocyst, and 57 (33%) pancreatic necrosis. Procedure complication rates, collection recurrence rates, and patient outcomes after acute pseudocyst drainage were independent of endoscopist experience. There was a dramatic improvement in chronic pseudocyst resolution rates after the first 20 procedures versus subsequent procedures (45% vs. 93%; p=0.0002) and a reduction in days to resolution (50 days, initial 20 procedures vs. 33.5 days, subsequent procedures; p=0.05). In patients with pancreatic necrosis, there was a decrease in median hospital stay with greater experience (23 days to 15 days; p=0.04).

Conclusions: Resolution of chronic pseudocyst after endoscopic drainage improves markedly with increasing endoscopist experience. Future prospective studies assessing skill acquisition are required to define the minimum number of collection drainage procedures at which competence can be achieved.

Background: The medical profession, payers, and patients are interested increasingly in the quality of endoscopic procedures, including colonoscopy. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has recommended “report cards” by which endoscopists may keep track of certain key elements of their practice including indications, findings, duration, technical end points, complications, and patient satisfaction. Methods: The GI-Trac endoscopy reporting database includes many of the data points recommended by ASGE for report cards. Seven hospital centers in North America have been collecting data prospectively for varying periods since 1994. These data were aggregated and analyzed by individual endoscopist. A total of 69 endoscopists performed 17,868 colonoscopies. Results: Twelve percent of the endoscopists reported that more than 20% of procedures they performed were completely normal. The average time taken by 27% of endoscopists was more than 40 minutes (without trainees involved), and only 55% achieved a cecal intubation rate of over 90%; for 9% the rate was less than 80%. Complication rates were too low for individual comparisons. Conclusion: These data provide an idea of colonoscopy performance by individual endoscopists in mainly academic centers. Incorporating all recommended data elements in future reporting databases will contribute to meaningful bench marking and to quality improvement efforts. (Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:352-7.)

OBJECTIVE:

Precut sphincterotomy is considered unsafe when used by inexperienced endoscopists. We sought to determine whether procedural experience with precut sphincterotomy predicted either successful cannulation or development of complications in these patients.

METHODS:

We describe the experience of 253 consecutive patients who underwent precut biliary sphincterotomy done by one endoscopist between September, 1993 and April, 2001. Data were prospectively collected on procedure indication and outcome. All patients were contacted by phone 30 days after the procedure to determine outcome. We also described precut utilization over time.

RESULTS:

All 253 precut procedures were divided chronologically into five groups of 50, with 53 in the final group. The rates of successful cannulation after precutting were 88%, 94%, 90%, 88%, and 98%, respectively (p = 0.05 for groups 1–4 vs group 5). Overall complication rates were similar in all groups (12%, 18%, 20%, 12%, and 14%), with no difference in complication severity. Female gender predicted successful cannulation (OR = 2.9 [p = 0.02]), whereas an indication of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction predicted development of complications (OR = 1.7 [p = 0.03]). The total number of ERCP procedures performed increased over time, whereas the proportion of precut sphincterotomies performed decreased.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although the success rate for precut sphincterotomy may increase with procedural experience, the complication rate does not seem to decrease. Precut sphincterotomy continues to carry an increased complication rate over standard sphincterotomy even when performed by an experienced biliary endoscopist. The need for precut sphincterotomy appears to decrease with increasing ERCP experience.