Open AccessExploring Use of Endoscopy Simulation in North American Pediatric Gastroenterology Fellowship Training Programs
Author(s) -
Gabrani Aayush,
Monteiro Iona M.,
Walsh Catharine M.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.206
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1536-4801
pISSN - 0277-2116
DOI - 10.1097/mpg.0000000000002525
Subject(s) - medicine , endoscopy , colonoscopy , simulation training , curriculum , demographics , medical physics , pediatric gastroenterology , medical education , surgery , simulation , psychology , computer science , hepatology , pedagogy , demography , colorectal cancer , cancer , sociology
Objectives: Increasing evidence supports simulation‐based training; however, limited data exist regarding its use in pediatric gastroenterology (GI). We explored the use of simulation‐based endoscopy training in pediatric GI fellowship programs across North America. Methods: GI fellowship program directors (PDs) from the United States and Canada were surveyed between August to November 2018. The pretested, electronic survey comprised 3 sections: program demographics; details of current simulation‐based training; and PDs’ perceptions of endoscopy simulation. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Forty‐three of 71 (61%) PDs responded (6 Canadian, 37 US). Programs were predominantly academic (95%) and enrolled 1.87 ± 1.01 fellows/yr. Twenty‐four programs (56%) reported using simulation for endoscopy training, whereas 8 (19%) used simulation for nonprocedural education. Only 2 programs (5%) used endoscopy simulation for assessment. Of those using simulation (n = 24), upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were trained most frequently, and mechanical simulators were used most commonly. Eight programs (33%) required simulation training prior to clinical performance. Although 10 programs (42%) provided protected training time, only 2 (8%) tracked hours. Three programs (13%) reported having an organized curriculum and 6 (25%) train their endoscopic trainers. Cost, time constraints, and lack of a standardized curriculum were perceived as key barriers to integration. Most PDs reported a need for endoscopy simulation to train both technical and nontechnical skills; however, they felt simulation cannot replace clinical experience. Conclusion: PDs recognize the potential importance of endoscopy simulation, particularly for novices; however, only 56% report using it. Perceived barriers indicate the need for inexpensive portable simulators and a validated pediatric simulation curriculum to promote uptake.