Coached practice using ERCP mechanical simulator improves trainees’ ERCP performance: a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims: Preliminary data suggested that simulation practice using an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) mechanical simulator (EMS) improved trainees’ skill. The aims of the current study were to confirm the impact of coached EMS practice at the beginning of ERCP training and to investigate whether subsequent uncoached EMS practice provides additional benefit.

Methods: Trainees entering ERCP training in 2008 (n = 8) and 2009 (n = 8) at two referral medical centers were randomized to receive a coached EMS practice either with (2009) or without (2008) subsequent uncoached practices or only routine training (controls). The outcome measures were successful deep biliary cannulation by the trainee and overall performance score as rated by blinded trainers, during the subsequent 3 months of clinical practice.

Results: Trainees undergoing single and multiple EMS practices were more likely than controls to achieve successful biliary cannulation (single: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.89, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.21 – 3.80 [P < 0.001]; multiple: 3.09, 95 %CI 1.13 – 8.46 [P = 0.028]) and to have superior overall performance scores (aOR 3.29, 95 %CI 1.37 – 7.91 [P = 0.008] and 6.92, 95 %CI 3.77 – 12.69 [P < 0.001], respectively). The benefit of single and multiple EMS practices on overall performance score remained significant after adjustment for success or failure of deep biliary cannulation (aOR 2.98, 95 %CI 1.38 – 6.43 [P = 0.005] and 6.09, 95 %CI 2.40 – 15.45 [P < 0.001], respectively). The benefits of single vs. multiple EMS practices were not statistically different.

Conclusions: Coached simulation using EMS improved novice trainees’ success of biliary cannulation and overall ERCP performance. Additional uncoached practices did not appear to provide further benefit. Trainees should undergo a coached EMS practice at the beginning of ERCP training.

• References

• 1 Adler DG, Baron TH, Davila RE et al. ASGE guideline: the role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 1-8
• 2 Leung JW. Fundamentals of ERCP. In: Cotton P, Leung JW, eds. Advanced digestive endoscopy: ERCP. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2005: 17-80
• 3 Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G et al. Incidence rates of post–ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781-1788
• 4 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-383
• 5 Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 909-918
• 6 Chutkan RK, Ahmad AS, Cohen J et al. ERCP core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 361-376
• 7 Cotton PB. Outcome, documentation, quality and training. In: Cotton PB, Wiliams CB, eds. Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy. 4th. edn. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 1996: 313
• 8 Kowalski T, Kanchana T, Pungpapong S. Perceptions of gastroenterology fellows regarding ERCP competency and training. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 345-349
• 9 Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS et al. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 983-989
• 10 Singh H, Thomas EJ, Petersen LA et al. Medical errors involving trainees: a study of closed malpractice claims from 5 insurers. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 2030-2036
• 11 Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL et al. Risk factors for post–ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 139-147
• 12 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P et al. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 2007; 56: 821-829
• 13 Cotton PB. Quality endoscopists and quality endoscopy units. J Interv Gastroenterol 2011; 1: 83-87
• 14 Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC et al. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 518-525
• 15 Mayo PH, Hackney JE, Mueck JT et al. Achieving house staff competence in emergency airway management: results of a teaching program using a computerized patient simulator. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 2422-2427
• 16 Patel AD, Gallagher AG, Nicholson WJ et al. Learning curves and reliability measures for virtual reality simulation in the performance assessment of carotid angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 1796-1802
• 17 Wayne DB, Didwania A, Feinglass J et al. Simulation-based education improves quality of care during cardiac arrest team responses at an academic teaching hospital: a case–control study. Chest 2008; 133: 56-61
• 18 Haycock AV, Youd P, Bassett P et al. Simulator training improves practical skills in therapeutic GI endoscopy: results from a randomized, blinded, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 835-845
• 19 Leung JW, Lee JG, Rojany M et al. Development of a novel ERCP mechanical simulator. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 1056-1062
• 20 Frimberger E, von Delius S, Rösch T et al. A novel and practicable ERCP training system with simulated fluoroscopy. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 517-520
• 21 Leung JW, Lee W, Wilson R et al. Comparison of accessory performance using a novel ERCP mechanical simulator. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 983-988
• 22 Lim BS, Leung JW, Lee J et al. Effect of ERCP mechanical simulator (EMS) practice on trainees’ ERCP performance in the early learning period: US multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 300-306
• 23 Wicks AC, Robertson GS, Veitch PS. Structured training and assessment in ERCP has become essential for the Calman era. Gut 1999; 45: 154-156
• 24 Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986; 42: 121-130
• 25 Rochon J. Application of GEE procedures for sample size calculations in repeated measures experiments. Stat Med 1998; 17: 1643-1658
• 26 Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 652-656
• 27 Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Derbrew M et al. Training and simulation for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19: i34-43
• 28 Maiss J, Dumser C, Zopf Y et al. “Hemodynamic efficacy” of two endoscopic clip devices used in the treatment of bleeding vessels, tested in an experimental setting using the compact Erlangen Active Simulator for Interventional Endoscopy (compactEASIE) training model. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 575-580
• 29 Maiss J, Prat F, Wiesnet J et al. The complementary Erlangen active simulator for interventional endoscopy training is superior to solely clinical education in endoscopic hemostasis – the French training project: a prospective trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 18: 1217-1225
• 30 Kruglikova I, Grantcharov TP, Drewes AM et al. The impact of constructive feedback on training in gastrointestinal endoscopy using high-fidelity Virtual-Reality simulation: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2010; 59: 181-185
• 31 Ende A, Zopf Y, Konturek P et al. Strategies for training in diagnostic upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 254-260
• 32 Mahmood T, Darzi A. The learning curve for a colonoscopy simulator in the absence of any feedback: no feedback, no learning. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 1224-1230
• 33 Desilets DJ, Banerjee S, Barth BA et al. Endoscopic simulators. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 861-867
• 34 Leung JW, Yen D. ERCP training – the potential role of simulation practice. J Interv Gastroenterol 2011; 1: 14-18
• 35 Leung J, Lim B, Ngo C et al. Head-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 175-181
• 36 Leung JW, Wang D, Hu B et al. A head-to-head hands-on comparison of ERCP mechanical simulator (EMS) and ex-vivo porcine stomach model (PSM). J Interv Gastroenterol 2011; 1: 108-113