Changing trends in the UK management of upper GI bleeding: is there evidence of reduced UK training experience?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate UK trainee experience in endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). METHODS: Data was prospectively collected from all patients presenting to South Yorkshire Hospitals with AUGIB from September 2011 to December 2011 and compared with data from 1996. Concurrently, all gastroenterology trainees registered with the British Society of Gastroenterology were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire regarding their experience in AUGIB management. RESULTS: 77% (589/766) of the patient cohort underwent endoscopy for AUGIB; 15% (90/589) were performed by trainees. 7.2% (9/125) of the out of hours endoscopy case load was performed by trainees; all were low-risk or medium-risk cases (pre-endoscopy Rockall score ≤4). During the study period, dual therapy was delivered by a trainee on only four occasions. Comparison with the 1996 cohort demonstrated a marked reduction in the number of trainee performed endoscopies (76% vs 15%; p<0.001). Questionnaires were returned by 51% (245/478) of British Society of Gastroenterology trainees. 81% (198/245) thought that <10% of the gastroscopies they had performed involved therapeutic intervention. 23% (57/245) felt they would not be competent in AUGIB endoscopy by completion of specialty training. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the decline over time in trainee experience in AUGIB endoscopy. It also highlights a lack of trainee exposure to more challenging cases, out of hours endoscopy and therapeutic procedures. Furthermore, trainees are concerned that a level of competency may not be attained during specialty training. We advocate reviewing UK endoscopic training provision for AUGIB to ensure that experienced endoscopists are produced to meet future service needs.

Is formal training necessary for capsule endoscopy? The largest gastroenterology trainee study with controls.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the infrastructure to train gastroenterologists in capsule endoscopy. The level of capsule endoscopy exposure among trainees in the United Kingdom or Europe has also not been quantified. AIMS AND METHODS: To assess the ability of 10 gastroenterology trainees with endoscopy experience to interpret 10 capsule endoscopy videos against five medical students, with an expert in capsule endoscopy as the gold standard. Parameters assessed included gastric emptying time, small bowel transit and the diagnosis made. A questionnaire survey assessed the level of capsule endoscopy exposure among United Kingdom trainees. RESULTS: Trainees were better at determining the gastric emptying time (p=0.013) and more likely to record true positives compared to the students (p=0.037). They were also less likely to record false positives (p=0.005) and more likely to reach the correct diagnosis (p=0.001, OR 3.6, CI 1.8-7.4). Our survey found that, 65% of trainees had prior exposure to capsule endoscopy but only 13% had done capsule endoscopy reporting. Sixty seven percent felt capsule endoscopy should be incorporated into their training. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that prior endoscopic experience enables trainees to interpret capsule endoscopy more accurately than medical students. However, there is a demand for focussed training which would enable trainees to reliably interpret pathology on capsule endoscopy.