Title |
Can a Computerized Simulator Assess Skill Level and Improvement in Performance of ERCP?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, November 2015
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10620-015-3939-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ara B. Sahakian, Loren Laine, Priya A. Jamidar, Uzma D. Siddiqui, Andrew Duffy, Maria M. Ciarleglio, Yanhong Deng, Anil Nagar, Harry R. Aslanian |
Abstract |
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is a challenging procedure with considerable risk. Computerized simulators are valuable in training for flexible endoscopy, but little data exist for their use in ERCP training. To determine a simulator's ability to assess the level of ERCP skill and its responsiveness over time to increasing trainee experience. In this prospective parallel-arm cohort study, six novice gastroenterology fellows and four gastroenterology faculty with expertise in ERCP completed four simulated baseline cases and the same four cases at a later date. This study took place at a surgical skills center at an academic tertiary referral center. The primary outcome was the total time to complete the ERCP procedure. For the baseline session, experts had a shorter total procedure time than novices (444.0 vs. 616.9 s; least squares mean; p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between experts and novices in the difference of total procedure time between session 1 and session 2 (-200.3 vs. -164.4; least squares mean; p = 0.402). The simulator was able to differentiate experts from novices for the primary outcome of total procedure time. The simulator was not responsive to an increase in trainee experience over time. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
Professor | 3 | 8% |
Librarian | 2 | 6% |
Other | 6 | 17% |
Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 39% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
Psychology | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 15 | 42% |