Download PDF
Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(12): E1238-E1243
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-118226
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Automatic and unbiased assessment of competence in colonoscopy: exploring validity of the Colonoscopy Progression Score (CoPS)

Louise Preisler
1   Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
,
Morten Bo Søndergaard Svendsen
2   Centre for Clinical Education (CEKU), The Capital Region of Denmark and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
3   Marine Biological Sections, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
,
Bo Søndergaard
4   Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
,
Lene Brink
5   Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital Herlev, Herlev, Denmark
,
Tyge Nordentoft
5   Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital Herlev, Herlev, Denmark
,
Lars Bo Svendsen
1   Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
,
Lars Konge
2   Centre for Clinical Education (CEKU), The Capital Region of Denmark and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted22 January 2016

accepted after revision29 July 2016

Publication Date:
17 November 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Background and aims: Colonoscopy is a difficult procedure to master. Increasing demands for colonoscopy, due to screening and surveillance programs, have highlighted the need for competent performers. Valid methods for assessing technical skills are pivotal for training and assessment. This study is the first clinical descriptive report of a novel colonoscopy assessment tool based on Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging (MEI) data and the aim was to gather validity evidence based on the data collected using the “Colonoscopy Progression Score” (CoPS).

Methods: We recorded 137 colonoscopy procedures performed by 31 endoscopists at three university hospitals. The participants performed more than two procedures each (range 2 – 12) and had an experience of 0 – 10 000 colonoscopies. The CoPS was calculated for each recording and validity was explored using a widely accepted contemporary framework. The following sources of validity evidence were explored: response process (data collection), internal structure (reliability), relationship to other variables (i. e. operator experience), and consequences of testing (pass/fail).

Results: Identical set-ups at all three locations ensured uniform data collection. The Generalizability coefficient (G-coefficient) was 0.80, and a Decision-study (D-study) revealed that four recordings were sufficient to ensure a G-coefficient above 0.80. We showed a positive correlation between CoPS and experience with Pearson’s r of 0.61 (P < 0.001). A pass/fail standard of 107 points was established using the contrasting group method to explore the consequences of testing.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence supporting the validity of the CoPS for use in assessing technical colonoscopy performance in the clinical setting.

Study registration: NCT01997177.

 

  • References

  • 1 Saunders BP, Phillips RK, Williams CB. Intraoperative measurement of colonic anatomy and attachments with relevance to colonoscopy. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 1491-1493
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bini EJ, Firoozi B, Choung RJ et al. Systematic evaluation of complications related to endoscopy in a training setting: A prospective 30-day outcomes study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 8-16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Spier BJ, Durkin ET, Walker AJ et al. Surgical resident’s training in colonoscopy: numbers, competency, and perceptions. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 2556-2561
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Lee S-H, Chung I-K, Kim S-J et al. An adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter evaluation of the learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 683-689
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sedlack RE. Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 355-366
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Koch AD, Haringsma J, Schoon EJ et al. Competence measurement during colonoscopy training: the use of self-assessment of performance measures. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 971-975
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376-380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Barton JR, Corbett S, Van der Vleuten CP. The validity and reliability of a Direct Observation of Procedural Skills assessment tool: assessing colonoscopic skills of senior endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 591-597
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Walsh CM, Ling SC, Khanna N et al. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool: development of a procedure-specific assessment tool for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 798-807
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sedlack RE, Baron TH, Downing SM et al. Validation of a colonoscopy simulation model for skills assessment. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 64-74
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Walsh CM, Sherlock ME, Ling SC, Carnahan H. Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In: Walsh CM, ed. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012. [cited 2 June 2013]
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Marshall JB. Technical proficiency of trainees performing colonoscopy: a learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 42: 287-291
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Haycock A, Bassett P, Bladen J et al. Validation of the second-generation Olympus colonoscopy simulator for skills assessment. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 952-958
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lüning TH, Keemers-Gels ME, Barendregt WB et al. Colonoscopic perforations: a review of 30,366 patients. Surg Endosc 2007; 21: 994-997
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Cotton P, Williams C. Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy: the fundamentals. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 2008: 88-93
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Shah SG, Thomas-Gibson S, Lockett M et al. Effect of real-time magnetic endoscope imaging on the teaching and acquisition of colonoscopy skills: results from a single trainee. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 421-425
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Nerup N, Preisler L, Svendsen MBS et al. Assessment of colonoscopy by use of magnetic endoscopic imaging: design and validation of an automated tool. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 548-554
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Messick SA. Validity. In: Linn RL, ed. Educational measurement. 3rd edn. New York: Macmillan; 1989: 13-103
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003; 37: 830-837
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Brennan RL. Generalizability theory. New York: Springer; 2001: 190-207
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Downing SM, Yudkowsky R. Assessment in health professions education. New York: Routledge; 2009: 119-148
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Spier BJ, Benson M, Pfau PR et al. Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 319-324
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Farthing MJ, Walt RP, Allan RN et al. A national training programme for gastroenterology and hepatology. Gut 1996; 38: 459-470
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ 2004; 38: 1006-1012
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Sedlack RE. The Mayo Colonoscopy Skills Assessment Tool: validation of a unique instrument to assess colonoscopy skills in trainees. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1125-1133, 1133.e1 – 3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Dancey CP. Statistics without maths for psychology: using SPSS for Windows. 4th ed. Harlow, UK; New York: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2007: 168-203
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Chung YW, Han DS, Yoo K-S et al. Patient factors predictive of pain and difficulty during sedation-free colonoscopy: A prospective study in Korea. Dig Liver Dis 2007; 39: 872-876
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Konge L, Larsen KR, Clementsen P et al. Reliable and valid assessment of clinical bronchoscopy performance. Respiration 2012; 83: 53-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Manzone J, Tremblay L, You-Ten KE et al. Task- versus ego-oriented feedback delivered as numbers or comments during intubation training. Med Educ 2014; 48: 430-440
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Korman LY. Skill and colonoscopy: even the pros take lessons. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 555-556
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar