Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Training in endoscopic mucosal resection: effectiveness and clinical utility of a short course for practicing endoscopists.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kayal Ahmed, Coderre Sylvain, Raman Maitreyi, Hill Heather L, Jaunin Stephanie, Kerrison Diana, Harvey Adrian, McLaughlin Kevin, Heitman Steven J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is not systematically taught during most training programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and clinical utility of a 1-day didactic and simulation-based EMR curriculum for practicing endoscopists without prior formal training in advanced endoscopic tissue resection.
METHODS: We designed a 1-day lecture and simulation-based EMR course. Twelve participants completed the course. Effectiveness and clinical utility were evaluated using sequential explanatory mixed methods. All participants completed a pre-course multiple choice question (MCQ) examination followed by a separate, post-course MCQ examination with a similar blueprint. A survey was also conducted to assess cognitive fatigue, perceived benefit, and potential for change in EMR practice. Finally, a delayed MCQ examination was administered 10-14 weeks later to assess knowledge retention and qualitative data were sequentially collected from 3 candidates via semi-structured interviews.
RESULTS: The mean pre-course score was 47.8% (SD 12.4%). The mean post-course score was 75% (9.9%) and the mean delayed score was 70.8% (13.6%), both significantly higher than the mean pre-course score (P < .001; Cohen's d = 1.86 and P < .001; Cohen's d = 1.47, respectively). There was no significant difference between the mean post- and delayed-course test scores (P = .2). Three themes emerged from the interviews: (1) a need for EMR training, (2) improved knowledge evaluating polyps, and (3) changed or refined EMR technique after the course.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates significant knowledge acquisition and retention of cognitive skills and suggests a change in practice following a 1-day focused didactic and simulation-based EMR course.
METHODS: We designed a 1-day lecture and simulation-based EMR course. Twelve participants completed the course. Effectiveness and clinical utility were evaluated using sequential explanatory mixed methods. All participants completed a pre-course multiple choice question (MCQ) examination followed by a separate, post-course MCQ examination with a similar blueprint. A survey was also conducted to assess cognitive fatigue, perceived benefit, and potential for change in EMR practice. Finally, a delayed MCQ examination was administered 10-14 weeks later to assess knowledge retention and qualitative data were sequentially collected from 3 candidates via semi-structured interviews.
RESULTS: The mean pre-course score was 47.8% (SD 12.4%). The mean post-course score was 75% (9.9%) and the mean delayed score was 70.8% (13.6%), both significantly higher than the mean pre-course score (P < .001; Cohen's d = 1.86 and P < .001; Cohen's d = 1.47, respectively). There was no significant difference between the mean post- and delayed-course test scores (P = .2). Three themes emerged from the interviews: (1) a need for EMR training, (2) improved knowledge evaluating polyps, and (3) changed or refined EMR technique after the course.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates significant knowledge acquisition and retention of cognitive skills and suggests a change in practice following a 1-day focused didactic and simulation-based EMR course.