Evaluation of formal feedback on endoscopic competence among trainees: the EFFECT trial

Introduction The medical literature describes disparity in colonoscopy performance. This randomised, controlled study aimed to characterise the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology (GI) trainees. Methods Gastroenterology trainees of similar experience levels who indep...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Irish journal of medical science 2008-09, Vol.177 (3), p.253-256
Main Authors: Harewood, G. C., Murray, F., Winder, S., Patchett, S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Chi-Square Distribution
Clinical Competence - standards
Colonoscopy - standards
Education, Medical, Graduate
Educational Measurement
Family Medicine
Feedback
Gastroenterology - education
General Practice
Humans
Internal Medicine
Internship and Residency
Ireland
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Article
Prospective Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction The medical literature describes disparity in colonoscopy performance. This randomised, controlled study aimed to characterise the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology (GI) trainees. Methods Gastroenterology trainees of similar experience levels who independently performed 581 colonoscopies over the study period were randomised to receive feedback/no feedback on their colonoscopy performance. Results Baseline colonoscopy performance was similar in both groups. Following feedback, caecal intubation improved by 10.5% (from 72.9 to 83.4%, p  = 0.04) in the feedback group and declined by 6.1% (from 78 to 71.9%, p  = 0.2) in the control group; polyp detection improved by 5.1% (from 12.9 to 18.0%, p  = 0.2) in the feedback group and by 2.9% (from 16.7 to 19.6%, p  = 0.5) in the control group. Conclusions Systematic feedback appears to enhance colonoscopy performance among GI trainees.
ISSN:0021-1265
1863-4362
DOI:10.1007/s11845-008-0161-z