Effects of basic endoscopic handling and care training on gastrointestinal endoscopy logistics

Abstract

Background and study aims The current practice of endoscopists is undergoing a dramatic revolution due to emerging endoscopy practices. Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy has led to hospital budgets setting aside funds specifically related to damage to endoscopic instruments. Therefore, training in understanding endoscopic equipment, handling techniques, and equipment care can be helpful in addressing this issue. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of educational courses and training about basic endoscopic handling and care in gastrointestinal endoscopic care and services.

Methods A number of new endoscopists, nurses, and nurse assistants were enrolled in a course for training in basic endoscopic handling and care. Data on the type of damage, cause, cost, and timing of endoscopic repair were prospectively collected. Data from the post-training period then were compared with retrospective data from the pre-training period.

Results This study demonstrated that after training, there was less damage to endoscopes, lower costs associated with it, and repair times were shorter for endoscopes than before the training course. Post-training results indicated savings of a total of $ 40,617.21 or £ 29,539.78 and 102.6 days per damaged endoscope.

Conclusions Basic endoscopic handling and care training plays an important role for both endoscopists and nurses, as well as in endoscopy facilities, specifically in avoiding the nuisance of unwanted and broken endoscopes. This could be beneficial for both hospital finances and endoscopic services.

Publication History

Received: 27 May 2021

Accepted: 24 August 2021

Article published online:
14 January 2022

• References

• 1 Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC. et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2018. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 254-272
• 2 Loras C, Mayor V, Fernández-Bañares F. et al. Study of the standard direct costs of various techniques of advanced endoscopy. Comparison with surgical alternatives. Dig Liver Dis 2018; 50: 689-697
• 3 Biswas S, Alrubaiy L, China L. et al. Trends in UK endoscopy training in the BSG trainees' national survey and strategic planning for the future. Frontline Gastroenterol 2018; 9: 200-207
• 4 Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, de Man RA. et al. Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gut 2016; 65: 607-615
• 5 Patel SG, Keswani R, Elta G. et al. Status of competency-based medical education in endoscopy training: a nationwide survey of US ACGME-accredited gastroenterology training programs. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 956-962
• 6 Verschuur EM, Kuipers EJ, Siersema PD. Nurses working in GI and endoscopic practice: a review. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 469-479
• 7 Yu S, Roh YS. Needs assessment survey for simulation-based training for gastrointestinal endoscopy nurses. Nurs Health Sci 2018; 20: 247-254
• 8 Lee SH, Park YK, Lee DJ. et al. Colonoscopy procedural skills and training for new beginners. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 16984-16995
• 9 Lee SH, Park YK, Cho SM. et al. Technical skills and training of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for new beginners. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 759-785
• 10 Skogås JG, Mårvik R. Measures taken to reduce damage and repair costs of rigid endoscopes during their handling and processing in surgical practice. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2003; 12: 76-81
• 11 Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B. et al. Cost analysis of flexible ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice. J Endourol 2016; 30: 254-256
• 12 Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S. et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2013; 11: 6
• 13 Zendejas B, Wang AT, Brydges R. et al. Cost: the missing outcome in simulation-based medical education research: a systematic review. Surgery 2013; 153: 160-176
• 14 Maloney S, Cook DA, Golub R. et al. AMEE Guide No. 123 - How to read studies of educational costs. Med Teach 2019; 41: 497-504
• 15 Tolsgaard MG, Tabor A, Madsen ME. et al. Linking quality of care and training costs: cost-effectiveness in health professions education. Med Educ 2015; 49: 1263-1271
• 16 Cook DA, Andersen DK, Combes JR. et al. The value proposition of simulation-based education. Surgery 2018; 163: 944-949
• 17 Maloney S, Reeves S, Rivers G. et al. The Prato Statement on cost and value in professional and interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2017; 31: 1-4
• 18 Walsh K, Levin H, Jaye P. et al. Cost analyses approaches in medical education: there are no simple solutions. Med Educ 2013; 47: 962-968
• 19 Foo J, Ilic D, Rivers G. et al. Using cost-analyses to inform health professions education – The economic cost of pre-clinical failure. Med Teach 2018; 40: 1221-1230
• 20 Kruidering-Hall M, OʼSullivan PS, Chou CL. Teaching feedback to first-year medical students: long-term skill retention and accuracy of student self-assessment. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24: 721-726
• 21 Offiah G, Ekpotu LP, Murphy S. et al. Evaluation of medical student retention of clinical skills following simulation training. BMC Med Educ 2019; 19: 263
• 22 Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 2004; 79: S70-S81