IMPACT OF A STRUCTURED CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY TRAINING PROGRAM ON CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY PROFICIENCY: A 3-YEAR PROSPECTIVE PORTUGUESE STUDY.

There is scarce evidence regarding the impact of capsule endoscopy (CE) training programs amongst participants. We aimed to analyze the impact of a CE training program on CE proficiency with a new developed CE training assessment tool, the Capsule Endoscopy Training Assessment (CETA). Additionally, we investigated whether prior experience in flexible endoscopic techniques or CE could influence participants’ CETA score and achievement of a posttraining learning goal (PLG).

A 3-year prospective-study included gastroenterologists’ residents and physicians who attended our hands-on CE training program. Each participant performed pretraining and posttraining CETA, encompassing theoretical questions and interpretation of segmented CE videos (practical component), and ranging between 0-100%. We compared the differences in overall, theoretical, and practical pretraining-posttraining mean CETA scores and defined a PLG as an overall posttraining mean CETA score of ≥ 90%.

Fifty-seven participants were included. The overall, theoretical, and practical mean CETA scores were significantly different between pretraining-posttraining (68.1vs94.4, P<0.001; 67.2vs94.4, P<0.001; 68.5vs94.4, P<0.001, respectively). Fifty participants (87.7%) achieved the PLG. Compared to participants without experience, those with previous contact with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and device-assisted enteroscopy had higher overall pretraining mean CETA score (70.3vs54.5, P=0.011; 70.0vs57.6, P=0.037; 78.6vs64.4, P=0.003, respectively), lower mean difference between overall pretraining-posttraining CETA score (8.0vs14, P=0.001; 8.0vs13, P=0.003; 6.0vs10.0, P=0.007, respectively) but not significantly different overall posttraining mean CETA score (94.0vs96.6, P=0.3; 93.9vs97.0, P=0.192; 96.2vs93.7, P=0.215, respectively). Compared to participants without experience, those with previous contact with CE had higher overall pretraining (74.7±2.5 vs 58.4±3.1, P<0.001, respectively), lower mean difference between overall pretraining-posttraining CETA score (7.0±5.0 vs 11±4.0, P=0.001, respectively) and higher overall posttraining mean CETA score (95.9±1.1 vs 92.1±1.3, P=0.029, respectively).

Although further validation is required, CETA seems to be a useful tool in assessing the impact of a structured CE training program on CE proficiency. We demonstrated a significant improvement in participants’ CETA score after training, with the majority achieving the posttraining learning goal. The magnitude of improvement in CE knowledge after training was different based on previous experience in flexible endoscopic techniques and CE, being the least experienced participants those who benefited the most from CE training.