Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Endoscopy training: time to stop counting procedures?
  1. Michael Bretthauer1,2,3,
  2. Aleidis Skard Brandrud4
  1. 1 Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  2. 2 Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  3. 3 Department of Medicine, Sørlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway
  4. 4 Quality Department, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michael Bretthauer, Institute of Health and Society, Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Postbox 1089 Blindern, Oslo 0318, Norway; michael.bretthauer{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Until recently, training of endoscopists was largely up to the local environment, often unstructured and only sporadically supervised. Consequently, there were large variations in the performance of endoscopy, and the quality of the service was very often too poor.1 During recent years, some countries have made great efforts to formalise and structure endoscopist training, often within the framework of continual quality improvement initiatives. This has led to impressive and sustained improvement in the quality of endoscopy services, as recently shown for colonoscopies in the UK.2

The number of procedures performed during training or practice has long been used as a measure of competency. Clearly, competency of technical skills is related to how often someone does something. Repetition (increasing the number of times one does something within a certain amount of time) is a well recognised tool of learning and …

View Full Text


  • Contributors Both authors contributed equally at this manuscript.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles