Article Text

PDF
Research
Evaluation of a European-wide survey on paediatric endoscopy training
  1. Ilse Julia Broekaert1,
  2. Joerg Jahnel2,
  3. Nicolette Moes3,
  4. Hubert van der Doef4,
  5. Angela Ernst5,
  6. Jorge Amil Dias6,
  7. Mike Thomson7,
  8. Christos Tzivinikos8
  1. 1Department of Paediatrics, University Children’s Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  2. 2Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
  3. 3Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium
  4. 4Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  5. 5Institute for Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  6. 6Unit of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Paediatrics, Centro Hospitalar S. João, Porto, Portugal
  7. 7Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Sheffield Children’s Hospital, Sheffield, UK
  8. 8Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ilse Julia Broekaert, Department of Paediatrics, University Children’s Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne 50937, Germany; ibroekaert{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective To evaluate quality of paediatric endoscopy training of Young members of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN).

Methods An online questionnaire designed by the Young ESPGHAN Committee was sent to 125 Young ESPGHAN members between February 2014 and September 2015. The questionnaire comprised 32 questions addressing some general information of the participants and the structure of their paediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition programmes; procedural volume and terminal ileal intubation (TII) rate; supervision, assessments, participation in endoscopy courses and simulator training; and satisfaction with endoscopy training and self-perceived competency.

Results Of 68 participants, 48 (71%) were enrolled in an official training programme. All alumni (n=31) were trained in endoscopy. They completed a median of 200 oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) and 75 ileocolonoscopies (ICs) with a TII rate of >90% in 43%. There is a significant difference in numbers of ICs between the TII rate groups >90%, 50%–90% and <50% (median 150 vs 38 vs 55) (p<0.001). 11 alumni (35%) followed the ESPGHAN Syllabus during training. 25 alumni (81%) attended basic skills endoscopy courses and 19 (61%) experienced simulator training. 71% of the alumni were ‘(very) satisfied’ with their diagnostic OGD, while 52% were ‘(very) satisfied’ with their IC training. The alumni felt safe to independently perform OGDs in 84% and ICs in 71% after their training.

Conclusions Despite reaching the suggested procedural endoscopy volumes, a rather low TII rate of >90% calls for end-of-training certifications based on the achievement of milestones of competency.

  • gastrointesinal endoscopy
  • paediatric gastroenterology
  • colonoscopy
  • diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors IJB, JJ and CT designed the survey; IJB, JJ, NM, HvdD, AE and CT acquired, analysed and interpreted the data; IJB drafted the work; JJ, NM, HvdD, AE, JAD, MT and CT revised the paper critically for important intellectual content; all authors gave final approval of the version to be published and are in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Funding The European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition.

  • Competing interests JAD reports personal fees from Nestlé, Danone, Pharmakern and Abbvie; NM reports personal fees from Nestle; MT reports personal fees from Danone/Nutricia and Movetis, grants from Mead Johnson, Jansen, Nestle, Dubai Arab Paediatric Society, Norgine, Astra-Zeneca, Reckitt-Benckeiser, Movetis and Cook; CT reports personal fees from Abbvie.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval The study was reviewed and approved by the University of Cologne Institutional Review Board, Cologne, Germany. A copy of the ethical approval documents is uploaded in PDF format as a supplemental file.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All data are presented in the manuscript and supplementary material; no additional data are available.

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.