Journal article : Review
Global trends in training and credentialing guidelines for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review
- Abstract:
-
Background and study aims Credentialing, the process through which an institution assesses and validates an endoscopist’s qualifications to independently perform a procedure, can vary by region and country. Little is known about these inter-societal and geographic differences. We aimed to systematically characterize credentialing recommendations and requirements worldwide.
Methods We conducted a systematic review of credentialing practices among gastrointestinal and endoscopy societies worldwide. An electronic search as well as hand-search of World Endoscopy Organization members’ websites was performed for credentialing documents. Abstracts were screened in duplicate and independently. Data were collected on procedures included in each document (e. g. colonoscopy, ERCP) and types of credentialing statements (procedural volume, key performance indicators (KPIs), and competency assessments). The primary objective was to qualitatively describe and compare the available credentialing recommendations and requirements from the included studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data when appropriate.
Results We screened 653 records and included 20 credentialing documents from 12 societies. Guidelines most commonly included credentialing statements for colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and ERCP. For colonoscopy, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 150 to 275 and adenoma detection rate (ADR) from 20 % to 30%. For EGD, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 130 to 1000, and duodenal intubation rate of 95 % to 100%. For ERCP, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 100 to 300 with selective duct cannulation success rate of 80 % to 90 %. Guidelines also reported on flexible sigmoidoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound.
Conclusions While some metrics such as ADR were relatively consistent among societies, there was substantial variation among societies with respect to procedural volume and KPI statements.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Version of record, pdf, 894.8KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1055/a-1981-3047
Authors
- Publisher:
- Thieme Gruppe
- Journal:
- Endoscopy International Open More from this journal
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 2
- Pages:
- E193-E201
- Place of publication:
- Germany
- Publication date:
- 2022-11-17
- Acceptance date:
- 2022-11-16
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
2196-9736
- ISSN:
-
2364-3722
- Pmid:
-
36845269
- Language:
-
English
- Subtype:
-
Review
- Pubs id:
-
1552325
- Local pid:
-
pubs:1552325
- Deposit date:
-
2023-10-24
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Sabrie et al.
- Copyright date:
- 2022
- Rights statement:
- © 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon.
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record