0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Academia and the Profession |

Quantitative Assessment of Procedural Competence: A Prospective Study of Training in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Paul S. Jowell, MB, ChB; John Baillie, MB, ChB; M. Stanley Branch, MD; John Affronti, MD; Cynthia L. Browning, RTR; and Barbara Phillips Bute, PhD
[+] Article and Author Information

From Duke University Medical Center and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Peter B. Cotton, MD, Steven Guarisco, MD, and Joseph Leung, MD, for participating in the initial phase of the study. Grant Support: In part by a grant from the American College of Gastroenterology. Requests for Reprints: Paul S. Jowell, MB, ChB, Box 3662, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710. Current Author Addresses: Dr. Jowell: Box 3662, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(12):983-989. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-125-12-199612150-00009
Text Size: A A A

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technically demanding procedure that can cause substantial complications. Competence in performing ERCP and the learning curve for achieving competence are poorly understood.

Objective: To evaluate the number of supervised ERCPs that physicians must do to achieve procedural competence. Competence was defined as a 0.8 probability of successfully completing specific technical components of ERCP and an overall grading of competence as judged by the attending physician.

Design: Prospective study.

Setting: University training program for gastroenterologists.

Participants: 17 gastroenterology fellows at various stages of training.

Measures: Experienced therapeutic endoscopists prospectively graded gastroenterology fellows during 1796 consecutive ERCPs. Fellows were graded on their overall level of competence for the procedure and on specific technical components of ERCP.

Results: Grading data were available for 1450 ERCPs (81%). The number of ERCPs done before adequate skill was achieved was 160 for cholangiography, 140 for pancreatography, 160 for deep cannulation of the pancreatic duct, 120 for stone extraction, and 60 for stent insertion. Fellows achieved overall competence after completing 180 to 200 ERCPs. The predicted probability of overall competence was 0.8 after 137 ERCPs and 0.9 after 185 ERCPs.

Conclusions: At least 180 ERCPs were required before these gastroenterology fellows could be considered competent in ERCP. This number is much greater than that previously recommended, and these findings have substantial implications for training guidelines and issues of competence and certification in ERCP. The methods used to define and evaluate competence in ERCP could also be used to assess competence in other medical procedures.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1. The probability reflects the chance of an acceptable score (a score of 1 [excellent] or 2 [adequate]) for all fellows grouped according to the number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs), in blocks of 20, that each fellow had done. In each part of the figure, n refers to the number of ERCPs in which the respective intervention was done.
Probability (95% CIs) of achieving an acceptable score for cholangiography, pancreatography, deep common bile duct cannulation, and deep pancreatic duct cannulation.
Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2. The probability reflects the chance of an acceptable score (defined as an overall score of 1, 2, or 3, signifying overall competence) for all fellows grouped according to the number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs), in blocks of 20, that each fellow had done. In the part of the figure that shows the mean overall score ( ), n refers to the number of ERCPs for which an overall score was given.
The mean (± SE) overall score and the predicted probability of achieving an acceptable overall score.left
Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)