Coaching Language to Improve Endoscopy Training Quality
CLIEnT
A Prospective Study of Standardized Coaching Language to Improve Endoscopy Training Quality
1 other identifier
interventional
25
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The goal of this randomized control study is to determine if the use of standardized coaching language by faculty trainers for teaching colonoscopy is associated with improved colonoscopy performance. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- If the use of standardized coaching language is effective in improving colonoscopy training?
- If the use of standardized coaching language influences the clarity of instructions by the faculty trainers during colonoscopy teaching Participants will take part in simulated colonoscopy teaching encounter using a virtual reality simulator for 1 hour in 2 different sessions 2 weeks apart. Researchers will compare 2 groups of faculty trainers to to see if the standardized coaching language effects the colonoscopy training quality.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at below P25 for not_applicable
Started Mar 2022
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
March 23, 2022
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
December 9, 2022
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
January 6, 2023
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
May 30, 2023
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
June 30, 2023
CompletedAugust 29, 2023
August 1, 2023
1.2 years
December 9, 2022
August 24, 2023
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (2)
Change in colonoscopy performance
The de-identified video-recording of the simulated colonoscopy will be assessed by blinded external rater. This will be done using the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) which is a colonoscopy assessment tool with strong validity evidence. For the GiECAT, 6 global rating items on supervision scale (measuring from 1 to 5) and 5 checklist items which are applicable to simulated procedures (i.e., no patients involved) will be used. Since it is a competency based tool with a checklist, there is no maximum score, but instead is a rating scale. To ensure blinding, only the trainee's gloved hands will be seen, and the videos used for assessment of colonoscopy performance will not have sound to control for any effects the faculty instruction may have on the ratings of performance.
Change from Baseline colonoscopy performance at 2 weeks
Change in colonoscopy performance
The de-identified video-recording of the simulated colonoscopy will be assessed by blinded external rater. This will be done using another colonoscopy assessment form with strong validity evidence - 8 'Procedure' items from the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) Colonoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) form. This is a supervision-based scale (measuring from 1 to 4). Since this is also a competency based tool with a checklist, it has a rating scale with no maximum score. To ensure blinding, only the trainee's gloved hands will be seen, and the videos used for assessment of colonoscopy performance will not have sound to control for any effects the faculty instruction may have on the ratings of performance.
Change from Baseline colonoscopy performance at 2 weeks
Secondary Outcomes (9)
Change in 'Red-out' time
Change from baseline time in red-out at 2 weeks
Change in time to cecum
Change from baseline time to cecum at 2 weeks
Change in Cognitive load
Change from Baseline cognitive load at 2 weeks
Change in Cognitive load
Change from Baseline cognitive load at 2 weeks
Change in Cognitive load
Change from Baseline cognitive load at 2 weeks
- +4 more secondary outcomes
Study Arms (2)
Training Group
EXPERIMENTALFaculty participants will participate in educational training designed to teach them standardized coaching language for endoscopy instruction and strategies to promote effective communication during an endoscopy teaching. It will be comprised of: 1. A 15-minute-long training video demonstrating the use of recommended coaching language for endoscopy instruction (e.g., recommended 14 standard terms, need to refer to the screen when directing a trainee as opposed to their hands, use of a clockface analogy) and communication best practices (e.g., checking to ensure understanding, avoidance of cognitive overload, task deconstruction) 2. The faculty will be given a small (10x10 cm) flash card with the recommended 14 standard terms which they can access during the second simulated encounter. To control for any potential effect of the presence of the card on the trainee during teaching, each faculty be given an identical card with 14 random words on it to hold during the first encounter
Control Group
ACTIVE COMPARATORFaculty participants will take part in 'dummy' educational training comprised of: 1. A 15-minute-long 'dummy' colonoscopy training video which outlines how to set goals ahead of an endoscopy training session. The video will not discuss standardized coaching language and/or communication best practices 2. This group will also be provided a small (10x10cm) flash card but with random words on it (identical to the first simulated colonoscopy teaching encounter).
Interventions
The faculty trainer participants in training groups will watch a 15-min long video between the two simulated endoscopy teaching encounters. The video link will be emailed to them 1 week before the second simulated encounter, and they can watch it in their own time. The training video will demonstrate the use of recommended coaching language for endoscopy instruction (e.g., recommended 14 standard terms, need to refer to the screen when directing a trainee as opposed to their hands, use of a clockface analogy) and communication best practices (e.g., checking to ensure understanding, avoidance of cognitive overload, task deconstruction).
The faculty trainer participants in the control groups will watch a 15-min long video between the two simulated endoscopy teaching encounters. The video link will be emailed to them 1 week before the second simulated encounter, and they can watch it in their own time. The video will be a 'dummy' colonoscopy training video which outlines how to set goals ahead of an endoscopy training session. The video will not discuss standardized coaching language and/or communication best practices.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Faculty members who are endoscopy trainers in either pediatric or adult gastroenterology division at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center or Children's Medical Center, Dallas
- Fellow trainees in pediatric or adult gastroenterology division at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center or Children's Medical Center, Dallas
You may not qualify if:
- Advanced endoscopy fellows
- Fellows beyond Post-Graduate Year-6 (PGY-6)
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
UTSW
Dallas, Texas, 75390, United States
Related Publications (20)
Walsh CM. In-training gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tools: Types of tools, validation and impact. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016 Jun;30(3):357-74. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2016.04.001. Epub 2016 Apr 16.
PMID: 27345645BACKGROUNDWaschke KA, Anderson J, Macintosh D, Valori RM. Training the gastrointestinal endoscopy trainer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016 Jun;30(3):409-19. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2016.05.001. Epub 2016 May 14.
PMID: 27345649BACKGROUNDSiau K, Green JT, Hawkes ND, Broughton R, Feeney M, Dunckley P, Barton JR, Stebbing J, Thomas-Gibson S. Impact of the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) on endoscopy services in the UK and beyond. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr;10(2):93-106. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2018-100969. Epub 2018 Nov 13.
PMID: 31210174BACKGROUNDCoderre S, Anderson J, Rostom A, McLaughlin K. Training the endoscopy trainer: from general principles to specific concepts. Can J Gastroenterol. 2010 Dec;24(12):700-4. doi: 10.1155/2010/493578.
PMID: 21165376BACKGROUNDWalsh CM, Anderson JT, Fishman DS. Evidence-based Approach to Training Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Trainers. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017 Apr;64(4):501-504. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001473.
PMID: 27846065BACKGROUNDGavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, Donnelly MT, Williams JG, Swarbrick ET. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013 Feb;62(2):242-9. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301848. Epub 2012 Jun 1.
PMID: 22661458BACKGROUNDBroekaert I, Tzivinikos C, Narula P, Antunes H, Dias JA, van der Doef H, Isoldi S, Norsa L, Romano C, Scheers I, Silbermintz A, Tavares M, Torroni F, Urs A, Thomson M. European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Position Paper on Training in Paediatric Endoscopy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020 Jan;70(1):127-140. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002496. No abstract available.
PMID: 31799965BACKGROUNDDilly CK, Sewell JL. How to Give Feedback During Endoscopy Training. Gastroenterology. 2017 Sep;153(3):632-636. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.023. Epub 2017 Jul 27. No abstract available.
PMID: 28757268BACKGROUNDZawadzki M, Gomez Ruiz M, Tou S, Jeffels A, Matzel KE. A proposed system for standardized terminology in minimally invasive surgery - a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2020 Dec;22(12):2346-2347. doi: 10.1111/codi.15309. Epub 2020 Sep 16. No abstract available.
PMID: 32790087BACKGROUNDLauridsen KG, Watanabe I, Lofgren B, Cheng A, Duval-Arnould J, Hunt EA, Good GL, Niles D, Berg RA, Nishisaki A, Nadkarni VM. Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2020 Feb 1;147:73-80. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.013. Epub 2019 Dec 28.
PMID: 31891790BACKGROUNDKhan R, Zheng E, Wani SB, Scaffidi MA, Jeyalingam T, Gimpaya N, Anderson JT, Grover SC, McCreath G, Walsh CM. Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence. Endoscopy. 2021 Dec;53(12):1235-1245. doi: 10.1055/a-1352-7293. Epub 2021 Mar 16.
PMID: 33440438BACKGROUNDBarton JR, Corbett S, van der Vleuten CP; English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme; UK Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The validity and reliability of a Direct Observation of Procedural Skills assessment tool: assessing colonoscopic skills of senior endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Mar;75(3):591-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.053. Epub 2012 Jan 9.
PMID: 22227035BACKGROUNDSiau K, Dunckley P, Valori R, Feeney M, Hawkes ND, Anderson JT, Beales ILP, Wells C, Thomas-Gibson S, Johnson G; Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG). Changes in scoring of Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) forms and the impact on competence assessment. Endoscopy. 2018 Aug;50(8):770-778. doi: 10.1055/a-0576-6667. Epub 2018 Apr 3.
PMID: 29614526BACKGROUNDSiau K, Crossley J, Dunckley P, Johnson G, Feeney M, Iacucci M, Anderson JT; Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG). Colonoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Assessment Tool for Evaluating Competency Development During Training. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Feb;115(2):234-243. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000426.
PMID: 31738285BACKGROUNDWalsh CM, Ling SC, Khanna N, Grover SC, Yu JJ, Cooper MA, Yong E, Nguyen GC, May G, Walters TD, Reznick R, Rabeneck L, Carnahan H. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool: reliability and validity evidence. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1417-1424.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.030. Epub 2015 Mar 7.
PMID: 25753836BACKGROUNDWalsh CM, Ling SC, Mamula P, Lightdale JR, Walters TD, Yu JJ, Carnahan H. The gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tool for pediatric colonoscopy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2015 Apr;60(4):474-80. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000686.
PMID: 25564819BACKGROUNDSewell JL, Boscardin CK, Young JQ, Ten Cate O, O'Sullivan PS. Measuring cognitive load during procedural skills training with colonoscopy as an exemplar. Med Educ. 2016 Jun;50(6):682-92. doi: 10.1111/medu.12965.
PMID: 27170086BACKGROUNDSewell JL, Young JQ, Boscardin CK, Ten Cate O, O'Sullivan PS. Trainee perception of cognitive load during observed faculty staff teaching of procedural skills. Med Educ. 2019 Sep;53(9):925-940. doi: 10.1111/medu.13914. Epub 2019 Jun 9.
PMID: 31179594BACKGROUNDSewell JL, Bowen JL, Cate OT, O'Sullivan PS, Shah B, Boscardin CK. Learning Challenges, Teaching Strategies, and Cognitive Load: Insights From the Experience of Seasoned Endoscopy Teachers. Acad Med. 2020 May;95(5):794-802. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002946.
PMID: 31425188BACKGROUNDKennedy TJ, Lingard LA. Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ. 2006 Feb;40(2):101-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02378.x.
PMID: 16451236BACKGROUND
Related Links
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Aayush Gabrani, MD
University of Texas
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- DOUBLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- OTHER
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Associate Professor
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
December 9, 2022
First Posted
January 6, 2023
Study Start
March 23, 2022
Primary Completion
May 30, 2023
Study Completion
June 30, 2023
Last Updated
August 29, 2023
Record last verified: 2023-08
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will not share
Individual Participant Data (IPD) will not be shared because this was not included in the consent form at the time of study design. Most of the participants have already been consented and recruited to participate and IPD was not included in that discussion.