Dr Lars Konge and colleagues developed a reliable method of assessing competence in colonoscopy based on multiple sources.
Physicians with varying degrees of experience in colonoscopy performed 2 colonoscopies each in a standardized simulated environment.
Their performances were assessed under direct observation by an expert rater and by automatic computerized analysis of operator movements and scope movements, respectively.
The team calculated reliability for subjective assessment, time to cecum, analysis of operator movement and analysis of scope movements.
|20 physicians were included in the study|
|Scandanavian Journal of Gastroenterology|
Composite score calculations were used to explore different combinations of the measures.
The researchers included 20 physicians in the study.
The reliability scores were 0.92, 0.57, 0.87 and 0.55 for the subjective score assessed under direct observation, time to cecum, distance between operatorís hands and colonoscopy progression score, respectively.
Equal weight to all 4 methods resulted in a reliability of 0.91, and optimal weighting of the methods resulted in a maximum reliability of 0.95.
Dr Konge's team concludes, "Combining subjective expert ratings with automated objective assessments results in a less biased and more reliable assessment of competence in colonoscopy."