Endoscopy SimulationNCT02877420
Impact of a Simulation-based Training Curriculum of Non-technical Skills on Colonoscopy Performance
A study testing Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum and Conventional Simulation Training Group in people with Endoscopy Simulation, run by Unity Health Toronto at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The investigators aim to test a curriculum of non-technical skills (NTS) training for simulation-based training of colonoscopy. There is no known literature to date on the optimal approach on how to teach NTS in endoscopy. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Endoscopy Simulation
- What is being tested?
- Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum and Conventional Simulation Training Group
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 42 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Jun 2015to Jun 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Novice endoscopists from general surgery, gastroenterology, or pediatrics gastroenterology residency programs at the University of Toronto
Who cannot join
- If participants have performed more than 25 endoscopies
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The investigators aim to test a curriculum of non-technical skills (NTS) training for simulation-based training of colonoscopy. There is no known literature to date on the optimal approach on how to teach NTS in endoscopy. The objectives are to evaluate a simulation-based curriculum to teach NTS, to explore the relationship between NTS and other domains of competency, and understand how NTS are acquired in endoscopic training.
Read the detailed description
This study will employ a randomized controlled two-arm design. All testing and training will take place at St. Michael's Hospital (30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario). During the study participants will be performing simulated lower endoscopic procedures on a virtual reality (VR) endoscopy simulator.
Description of Simulation Devices used
Low-Fidelity Simulator (Bench Top Model): The low-fidelity simulator is a validated bench-top endoscopy simulator that helps develop general endoscopic skills. The simulator is comprised of a series of vertical wooden barriers with numbered targets (holes) conforming to 27 different sequences of varying complexity. An Olympus paediatric videocolonoscope is used to navigate the defined sequences as quickly and accurately as possible, with visual output being displayed on a video monitor.
High-Fidelity Simulator: Virtual Reality Model: The high-fidelity simulator to be used for testing and training is the EndoVR® virtual reality (VR) endoscopy simulator. It models navigation through a colon, using a specialized endoscope that is inserted into a computer-based module with a screen showing the colonic lumen of a virtual patient. It provides both visual and haptic feedback related to the procedure. The VR simulator has a number of standardized case-based scenarios of varying complexity for colonoscopy.
Details of experimental design
Baseline questionnaire: A written questionnaire will be administered to all participants at the start of the project to collect demographic and background information including: age, sex, level of training, previous endoscopy experience and nature of experience (if applicable), and video game experience, which may correlate with baseline endoscopic skill.
Pre-test: All participants will then take part in a pre-test designed to assess their baseline (1) knowledge of colonoscopy; (2) technical skills; and (3) non-technical skills. No feedback will be provided at any point during the pre-test. The pre-test will consist of the following:
Knowledge Test: A 30 minute (20 questions) multiple-choice question test designed to assess participants' theoretical knowledge of colonoscopy, including indications, sedation, safety, findings, pathology and follow-up.
VR Simulation Test: Participants baseline endoscopic technical proficiency will be will be assessed through the completion of a colonoscopy procedure on the VR simulator. This scenario simulates a screening colonoscopy, without the need for any type of intervention such as biopsy. The procedure will be timed so that participants do not take longer than 30 minutes to complete the procedure. An expert rater will be present to assess performance, but will not provide assistance. All participants will be videotaped in order to obtain performance measures such that their faces are not captured to ensure anonymity. Prior to starting the procedure, participants will complete a questionnaire to measure their self-efficacy.
VR Simulation Based "Integrated Scenario" Test: Following the simulator-only test, participants will complete an Integrated Scenario format test to assess their baseline endoscopic non-technical proficiency. This test was modeled after another test during which participants perform a colonoscopy procedure on the VR simulator while interacting with an endoscopic nurse and a standardized patient (SP) portraying a patient. The simulated procedure will mimic the setup of an endoscopic suite, as the VR simulator will be positioned next to a patient bed. A standardized patient, who will receive instructions regarding their medical role, will act out a scenario on colon cancer screening. Trainees will be expected to explain the colonoscopy procedure, its benefits and risks, and obtain procedural consent. The trainee will then carry out the procedure on the VR simulator while responding to the patient and interacting with the standardized nurse (SN) as appropriate. The SP will act out cues from the VR simulator if the simulator signals that the procedure has exceeded its threshold for discomfort. The performance of all participants will be videotaped (in a manner that their faces are not captured to ensure anonymity) in order to obtain performance measures. Participants will be given a maximum of 45 minutes to complete the procedure. Prior to starting the procedure, participants will complete a questionnaire to measure their self-efficacy.
Training interventions: Subsequently participants will be randomized, using an online randomization algorithm, to one of two groups (following a 1:1 allocation distribution)
Sample size calculation: A power analysis was computed using G*Power version 3.1.9. Using a previous study that evaluated an NTS training curriculum in surgery as assessed by the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) and OSANTS forms, we conducted the analysis using the relevant effect size. Based on an effect size of 0.65 (effect size f), an alpha of 0.05 (two-tailed), a beta of 0.20, 2 groups, and 3 measurements, 16 participants are required to achieve a power of greater than 0.80 using repeated measures ANOVA (between-factors). Furthermore, a previous study comparing a curriculum in endoscopic simulation found that a minimum of 15 participants per group was sufficient to detect a significant difference. To accommodate for a projected 20% dropout and/or non-response that may occur, we therefore plan to recruit a total of 36 participants.
Statistical analysis: Statistical analyses will be performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. All statistical tests will be considered significant at p < 0.05. Baseline Questionnaire: Patient demographics and baseline variables will be compared between the two groups using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables respectively. (b)Clinical Performance (Technical and Non-Technical): Clinical performance during the live colonoscopies for each group will be determined by comparing the scores from the DOPS, GiECAT, NAPCOMS, and Modified-OSANTS. Specifically, a mixed factor 2 (NTS curriculum vs. TS curriculum) x 2 (procedure 1 vs. procedure 2) ANOVA will be used to determine whether there is a difference based on the rating scales. Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD) test will be used as a post-hoc analysis to determine any significant differences.
Technical Performance: Technical performance on the simulator for each group will be determined by comparing the scores from the DOPS, GiECAT, and GAGES. Specifically, a mixed factor 2 (NTS curriculum vs. TS curriculum) x 3 (pretest, posttest, retention test) ANOVA will be used to determine whether there is a difference based on the rating scales. Tukey HSD test will be used as a post-hoc analysis to determine any significant differences.
Non-Technical Performance: Non-technical performance on the simulator for each group will be determined by comparing the scores from the GiECAT and modified OSANTS. Specifically, a mixed factor 2 (NTS curriculum vs. TS curriculum) x 3 (pretest, posttest, retention test) ANOVA will be used to determine whether there is a difference based on the rating scales. Tukey HSD test will be used as a post-hoc analysis to determine any significant differences.
- Conditions
- Endoscopy Simulation
- Being tested
- Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum, Conventional Simulation Training Group
- Keywords
- Endoscopy, Simulation Training, Non-technical Skills
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Non-Technical Skills Training CurriculumOther
Conventional Simulation Training GroupOther
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum | Experimental | This group will receive 4 hours of small-group and hands-on sessions and 1 hour of didactic NTS sessions. Participants will watch a video that demonstrates ideal endoscopic performance. They will use the E-NTS Checklist during the integrated scenario training. This checklist targets NTS. The group will be given 7 hours of expert-assisted instruction on the low-fidelity simulator (1 hour) and the high-fidelity VR simulator (6 hours). Six modules of increasing difficulty in colonoscopy and polypectomy will be taught with feedback from an expert endoscopist who will demonstrate techniques, answer questions and provide individualized performance feedback with a focus on NTS. The last three hours on the high fidelity simulator will be an integrated scenario (IG) featuring standardized patient (SP) and standardized nurse (SN). Feedback will be given after each IG by the instructor, SP and SN. Participants can view the E-NTS Checklist before and after each case. Receives: Other: Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum |
| Conventional Simulation Training Group | Active comparator | This group will receive 4 hours of small-group and hands-on sessions on colonoscopy theory from an expert endoscopist. The core curriculum is designed on the basis of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy colonoscopy curriculum and an endoscopic training textbook. This curriculum has been shown to be effective when compared to self-regulated learning on the simulator. The sessions will be interlaced with eight hours of expert-assisted instruction on both the low-fidelity simulator (1 hour) and on the high-fidelity VR simulator (7 hours). Six modules of increasing difficulty in colonoscopy and polypectomy will be taught with feedback from an expert endoscopist. The expert will demonstrate techniques, answer questions and provide feedback on global performance. Feedback, in the form of performance metrics, will be provided by the simulator upon completion/failure of each module. Receives: Other: Conventional Simulation Training Group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Difference in performance between two groups in clinical colonoscopy
Each videotaped clinical colonoscopy will be independently assessed by two experienced endoscopists using the Joint Advisory Group for GI Endoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG/DOPS). The raters will be blinded to the group assignment. Training on how to use the tool will be provided for raters by the investigators of the study.
Measured: During clinical colonoscopy 4-6 weeks after NTS training curriculum
Secondary outcomes (8)
Differences in procedural knowledge
Assessed through multiple choice question tests
Measured: One day
Technical performance on a VR simulated colonoscopy - JAG/DOPS
Assessed through a Joint Advisory Group for GI Endoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG/DOPS).
Measured: 4-6 weeks
Technical performance on a VR simulated colonoscopy - GiECAT
Assessed through the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool for Pediatric Colonoscopy (GiECAT).
Measured: 4-6 weeks
Patient comfort during clinical colonoscopies
Assessed through Nurse-Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS).
Measured: 4-6 weeks
Non-technical performance on clinical colonoscopies
Assessed through the Modified Objective Structured Assessment of Nontechnical Skills (MOSANTS)
Measured: 4-6 weeks
Clinical performance on clinical colonoscopies - GiECAT
Assessed through GiECAT
Measured: 4-6 weeks
Participant self-efficacy
Assessed through an adapted scale based on the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Measured: 1 day
Practice case length on simulator
Assessed through a time measurement of the length of the case. Experienced endoscopists will assess participants' colonoscopy-specific skills, technical skills and non-technical skills during the pre-training, immediate and delayed post-training simulation-based assessments
Measured: 1 day
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Aug 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2015
- Primary completionJun 2016
- Study completionJun 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (35)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Endoscopy SimulationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Unity Health TorontoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 42 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Unity Health Toronto
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Samir Grover, Unity Health Toronto
- Investigators
- Samir C Grover, MD, MEd, Principal investigator, Unity Health Toronto
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02877420
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 15-164c
- Status last verified
- Apr 2017
- First submitted
- 28 Jul 2016
- Last updated
- 2 May 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Arriaga AF, Bader AM, Wong JM, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Ziewacz JE, Hepner DL, Boorman DJ, Pozner CN, Smink DS, Gawande AA. Simulation-based trial of surgical-crisis checklists. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 17;368(3):246-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1204720.
PubMed 23323901Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. No abstract available.
PubMed 847061Barton 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.
PubMed 22227035Brydges R, Carnahan H, Rose D, Rose L, Dubrowski A. Coordinating progressive levels of simulation fidelity to maximize educational benefit. Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):806-12. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7aabd.
PubMed 20520031Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, Benger J; Fourth National Audit Project. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011 May;106(5):632-42. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer059. Epub 2011 Mar 29.
PubMed 21447489Dedy NJ, Bonrath EM, Ahmed N, Grantcharov TP. Structured Training to Improve Nontechnical Performance of Junior Surgical Residents in the Operating Room: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2016 Jan;263(1):43-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001186.
PubMed 25775073Dedy NJ, Szasz P, Louridas M, Bonrath EM, Husslein H, Grantcharov TP. Objective structured assessment of nontechnical skills: Reliability of a global rating scale for the in-training assessment in the operating room. Surgery. 2015 Jun;157(6):1002-13. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.12.023. Epub 2015 Feb 20.
PubMed 25704419Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
PubMed 19897823Flin R, Patey R, Glavin R, Maran N. Anaesthetists' non-technical skills. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jul;105(1):38-44. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq134. Epub 2010 Jun 3.
PubMed 20522911Flin R, Yule S, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G. Teaching surgeons about non-technical skills. Surgeon. 2007 Apr;5(2):86-9. doi: 10.1016/s1479-666x(07)80059-x.
PubMed 17450689Gordon M, Darbyshire D, Baker P. Non-technical skills training to enhance patient safety: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2012 Nov;46(11):1042-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04343.x.
PubMed 23078681Grover SC, Garg A, Scaffidi MA, Yu JJ, Plener IS, Yong E, Cino M, Grantcharov TP, Walsh CM. Impact of a simulation training curriculum on technical and nontechnical skills in colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Dec;82(6):1072-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.008. Epub 2015 May 23.
PubMed 26007221Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004 Jun;36(2):212-24. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224.
PubMed 15130871Guadagnoli M, Morin MP, Dubrowski A. The application of the challenge point framework in medical education. Med Educ. 2012 May;46(5):447-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04210.x.
PubMed 22515752Hales B, Terblanche M, Fowler R, Sibbald W. Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Feb;20(1):22-30. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm062. Epub 2007 Dec 11.
PubMed 18073269
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 May 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Impact of a Simulation-based Training Curriculum of Non-technical Skills on Colonoscopy Performance
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02877420
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 15-164c
- Conditions
- Endoscopy Simulation
- Keywords
- Endoscopy, Simulation Training, Non-technical Skills
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 42 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Unity Health TorontoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Aug 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators aim to test a curriculum of non-technical skills (NTS) training for simulation-based training of colonoscopy. There is no known literature to date on the optimal approach on how to teach NTS in endoscopy. The objectives are to evaluate a simulation-based curriculum to teach NTS, to explore the relationship between NTS and other domains of competency, and understand how NTS are acquired in endoscopic training.
Detailed description
This study will employ a randomized controlled two-arm design. All testing and training will take place at St. Michael's Hospital (30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario). During the study participants will be performing simulated lower endoscopic procedures on a virtual reality (VR) endoscopy simulator.
Description of Simulation Devices used
Low-Fidelity Simulator (Bench Top Model): The low-fidelity simulator is a validated bench-top endoscopy simulator that helps develop general endoscopic skills. The simulator is comprised of a series of vertical wooden barriers with numbered targets (holes) conforming to 27 different sequences of varying complexity. An Olympus paediatric videocolonoscope is used to navigate the defined sequences as quickly and accurately as possible, with visual output being displayed on a video monitor.
High-Fidelity Simulator: Virtual Reality Model: The high-fidelity simulator to be used for testing and training is the EndoVR® virtual reality (VR) endoscopy simulator. It models navigation through a colon, using a specialized endoscope that is inserted into a computer-based module with a screen showing the colonic lumen of a virtual patient. It provides both visual and haptic feedback related to the procedure. The VR simulator has a number of standardized case-based scenarios of varying complexity for colonoscopy.
Details of experimental design
Baseline questionnaire: A written questionnaire will be administered to all participants at the start of the project to collect demographic and background information including: age, sex, level of training, previous endoscopy experience and nature of experience (if applicable), and video game experience, which may correlate with baseline endoscopic skill.
Pre-test: All participants will then take part in a pre-test designed to assess their baseline (1) knowledge of colonoscopy; (2) technical skills; and (3) non-technical skills. No feedback will be provided at any point during the pre-test. The pre-test will consist of the following:
Knowledge Test: A 30 minute (20 questions) multiple-choice question test designed to assess participants' theoretical knowledge of colonoscopy, including indications, sedation, safety, findings, pathology and follow-up.
VR Simulation Test: Participants baseline endoscopic technical proficiency will be will be assessed through the completion of a colonoscopy procedure on the VR simulator. This scenario simulates a screening colonoscopy, without the need for any type of intervention such as biopsy. The procedure will be timed so that participants do not take longer than 30 minutes to complete the procedure. An expert rater will be present to assess performance, but will not provide assistance. All participants will be videotaped in order to obtain performance measures such that their faces are not captured to ensure anonymity. Prior to starting the procedure, participants will complete a questionnaire to measure their self-efficacy.
VR Simulation Based "Integrated Scenario" Test: Following the simulator-only test, participants will complete an Integrated Scenario format test to assess their baseline endoscopic non-technical proficiency. This test was modeled after another test during which participants perform a colonoscopy procedure on the VR simulator while interacting with an endoscopic nurse and a standardized patient (SP) portraying a patient. The simulated procedure will mimic the setup of an endoscopic suite, as the VR simulator will be positioned next to a patient bed. A standardized patient, who will receive instructions regarding their medical role, will act out a scenario on colon cancer screening. Trainees will be expected to explain the colonoscopy procedure, its benefits and risks, and obtain procedural consent. The trainee will then carry out the procedure on the VR simulator while responding to the patient and interacting with the standardized nurse (SN) as appropriate. The SP will act out cues from the VR simulator if the simulator signals that the procedure has exceeded its threshold for discomfort. The performance of all participants will be videotaped (in a manner that their faces are not captured to ensure anonymity) in order to obtain performance measures. Participants will be given a maximum of 45 minutes to complete the procedure. Prior to starting the procedure, participants will complete a questionnaire to measure their self-efficacy.
Training interventions: Subsequently participants will be randomized, using an online randomization algorithm, to one of two groups (following a 1:1 allocation distribution)
Sample size calculation: A power analysis was computed using G*Power version 3.1.9. Using a previous study that evaluated an NTS training curriculum in surgery as assessed by the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) and OSANTS forms, we conducted the analysis using the relevant effect size. Based on an effect size of 0.65 (effect size f), an alpha of 0.05 (two-tailed), a beta of 0.20, 2 groups, and 3 measurements, 16 participants are required to achieve a power of greater than 0.80 using repeated measures ANOVA (between-factors). Furthermore, a previous study comparing a curriculum in endoscopic simulation found that a minimum of 15 participants per group was sufficient to detect a significant difference. To accommodate for a projected 20% dropout and/or non-response that may occur, we therefore plan to recruit a total of 36 participants.
Statistical analysis: Statistical analyses will be performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. All statistical tests will be considered significant at p < 0.05. Baseline Questionnaire: Patient demographics and baseline variables will be compared between the two groups using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables respectively. (b)Clinical Performance (Technical and Non-Technical): Clinical performance during the live colonoscopies for each group will be determined by comparing the scores from the DOPS, GiECAT, NAPCOMS, and Modified-OSANTS. Specifically, a mixed factor 2 (NTS curriculum vs. TS curriculum) x 2 (procedure 1 vs. procedure 2) ANOVA will be used to determine whether there is a difference based on the rating scales. Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD) test will be used as a post-hoc analysis to determine any significant differences.
Technical Performance: Technical performance on the simulator for each group will be determined by comparing the scores from the DOPS, GiECAT, and GAGES. Specifically, a mixed factor 2 (NTS curriculum vs. TS curriculum) x 3 (pretest, posttest, retention test) ANOVA will be used to determine whether there is a difference based on the rating scales. Tukey HSD test will be used as a post-hoc analysis to determine any significant differences.
Non-Technical Performance: Non-technical performance on the simulator for each group will be determined by comparing the scores from the GiECAT and modified OSANTS. Specifically, a mixed factor 2 (NTS curriculum vs. TS curriculum) x 3 (pretest, posttest, retention test) ANOVA will be used to determine whether there is a difference based on the rating scales. Tukey HSD test will be used as a post-hoc analysis to determine any significant differences.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum | Experimental | Other: Non-Technical Skills Training CurriculumThis group will receive 4 hours of small-group and hands-on sessions and 1 hour of didactic NTS sessions. Participants will watch a video that demonstrates ideal endoscopic performance. They will use the E-NTS Checklist during the integrated scenario training. This checklist targets NTS. The group will be given 7 hours of expert-assisted instruction on the low-fidelity simulator (1 hour) and the high-fidelity VR simulator (6 hours). Six modules of increasing difficulty in colonoscopy and polypectomy will be taught with feedback from an expert endoscopist who will demonstrate techniques, answer questions and provide individualized performance feedback with a focus on NTS. The last three hours on the high fidelity simulator will be an integrated scenario (IG) featuring standardized patient (SP) and standardized nurse (SN). Feedback will be given after each IG by the instructor, SP and SN. Participants can view the E-NTS Checklist before and after each case. |
| Conventional Simulation Training Group | Active comparator | Other: Conventional Simulation Training GroupThis group will receive 4 hours of small-group and hands-on sessions on colonoscopy theory from an expert endoscopist. The core curriculum is designed on the basis of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy colonoscopy curriculum and an endoscopic training textbook. This curriculum has been shown to be effective when compared to self-regulated learning on the simulator. The sessions will be interlaced with eight hours of expert-assisted instruction on both the low-fidelity simulator (1 hour) and on the high-fidelity VR simulator (7 hours). Six modules of increasing difficulty in colonoscopy and polypectomy will be taught with feedback from an expert endoscopist. The expert will demonstrate techniques, answer questions and provide feedback on global performance. Feedback, in the form of performance metrics, will be provided by the simulator upon completion/failure of each module. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Novice endoscopists from general surgery, gastroenterology, or pediatrics gastroenterology residency programs at the University of Toronto
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- If participants have performed more than 25 endoscopies
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum | Other | Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum |
| Conventional Simulation Training Group | Other | Conventional Simulation Training Group |
Primary outcome
Difference in performance between two groups in clinical colonoscopy
Time frame: During clinical colonoscopy 4-6 weeks after NTS training curriculum
Each videotaped clinical colonoscopy will be independently assessed by two experienced endoscopists using the Joint Advisory Group for GI Endoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG/DOPS). The raters will be blinded to the group assignment. Training on how to use the tool will be provided for raters by the investigators of the study.
8 secondary outcomes
Differences in procedural knowledge
Time frame: One day
Technical performance on a VR simulated colonoscopy - JAG/DOPS
Time frame: 4-6 weeks
Technical performance on a VR simulated colonoscopy - GiECAT
Time frame: 4-6 weeks
Patient comfort during clinical colonoscopies
Time frame: 4-6 weeks
Non-technical performance on clinical colonoscopies
Time frame: 4-6 weeks
Clinical performance on clinical colonoscopies - GiECAT
Time frame: 4-6 weeks
Participant self-efficacy
Time frame: 1 day
Practice case length on simulator
Time frame: 1 day
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 May 2017.
- Background: PubMed 23323901Arriaga AF, Bader AM, Wong JM, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Ziewacz JE, Hepner DL, Boorman DJ, Pozner CN, Smink DS, Gawande AA. Simulation-based trial of surgical-crisis checklists. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 17;368(3):246-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1204720.
- Background: PubMed 847061Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 22227035Barton 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.
- Background: PubMed 20520031Brydges R, Carnahan H, Rose D, Rose L, Dubrowski A. Coordinating progressive levels of simulation fidelity to maximize educational benefit. Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):806-12. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7aabd.
- Background: PubMed 21447489Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, Benger J; Fourth National Audit Project. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011 May;106(5):632-42. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer059. Epub 2011 Mar 29.
- Background: PubMed 25775073Dedy NJ, Bonrath EM, Ahmed N, Grantcharov TP. Structured Training to Improve Nontechnical Performance of Junior Surgical Residents in the Operating Room: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2016 Jan;263(1):43-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001186.
- Background: PubMed 25704419Dedy NJ, Szasz P, Louridas M, Bonrath EM, Husslein H, Grantcharov TP. Objective structured assessment of nontechnical skills: Reliability of a global rating scale for the in-training assessment in the operating room. Surgery. 2015 Jun;157(6):1002-13. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.12.023. Epub 2015 Feb 20.
- Background: PubMed 19897823Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
- Background: PubMed 20522911Flin R, Patey R, Glavin R, Maran N. Anaesthetists' non-technical skills. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jul;105(1):38-44. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq134. Epub 2010 Jun 3.
- Background: PubMed 17450689Flin R, Yule S, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G. Teaching surgeons about non-technical skills. Surgeon. 2007 Apr;5(2):86-9. doi: 10.1016/s1479-666x(07)80059-x.
- Background: PubMed 23078681Gordon M, Darbyshire D, Baker P. Non-technical skills training to enhance patient safety: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2012 Nov;46(11):1042-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04343.x.
- Background: PubMed 26007221Grover SC, Garg A, Scaffidi MA, Yu JJ, Plener IS, Yong E, Cino M, Grantcharov TP, Walsh CM. Impact of a simulation training curriculum on technical and nontechnical skills in colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Dec;82(6):1072-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.008. Epub 2015 May 23.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Endoscopy Simulation
Recruiting
Outcomes in Simulated Endoscopy Training
Impact of Supervision on Endoscopy Simulation Curriculum
Not yet recruiting
Caregiver Training Regarding Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Feeding and Care
Caregiver, Caregiver Anxiety
Enrolling by invitation
Impact of Left-Handed Tailored Endoscopic Mitral Simulation Training on Skill Acquisition for Left-handed Surgeons
Cardiac Surgery, Training
Not yet recruiting
Comparing 3D and 2D Views in Biportal Spine Surgery: A Pilot Simulation Study
Spinal Diseases, Endoscopy Simulation
Recruiting
Comparing AI Role-Play and Peer Role-Play for Informed Consent Training in Endoscopy: A Randomized Control Trial
Informed Consent Process
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Samir C Grover, MD, MEd principal investigator
Unity Health Toronto
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Non-Technical Skills Training Curriculum and Conventional Simulation Training Group in people with Endoscopy Simulation, run by Unity Health Toronto at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 May 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Difference in performance between two groups in clinical colonoscopy (time frame: During clinical colonoscopy 4-6 weeks after NTS training curriculum). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02877420, which also lists 35 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 May 2017.