The impact of distraction minimization on endoscopic mentoring and performance

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic mentoring requires active attention by the preceptor. Unfortunately, sources of distraction are abundant during endoscopic precepting. The impact of distraction minimization on endoscopic mentoring and performance is unknown. Methods Fellow and attending preceptors were paired and randomized in a prospective crossover design to perform esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy in either a “distraction minimization” (DM) or a “standard” (S) room. Cell phones, pagers, music, and computers were not permitted in DM rooms. S rooms operated under typical conditions. Fellows and attendings then completed a survey. The primary outcome was fellow satisfaction with mentoring experience (visual analogue scale: 0 = min,100 = max). Additional fellow outcomes included satisfaction of attending attentiveness, identifying landmarks, communication, and distractedness; attending outcomes included satisfaction with mentoring, attentiveness, communication, and distractedness. Endoscopic performance measures included completion of EGD, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time, attending assistance, and polyp detection rate. A paired t-test was used to compare mean differences (MD) between rooms; significance set at P < 0.05. Results Eight fellows and seven attendings completed 164 procedures. Despite a trend toward less distraction between rooms (DM = 12.5 v. S = 18.3, MD =  4.1, P = 0.17), there was no difference in fellow satisfaction with training/mentoring (DM = 93, S = 93, MD = –0.04, P = 0.97), attentiveness (DM = 95, S = 92, MD = 0.86, P = 0.77), identifying pathology/landmarks (DM = 94, S = 94, MD = –1.72, P = 0.56), or communication (DM = 95, S = 95,MD = 1.0, P = 0.37). Similarly, there was no difference between rooms for any attending outcome measures or performance metrics. Conclusions DM did not improve perceived quality of endoscopic mentoring or performance for fellows or attendings; however, reduced distraction may improve attending engagement/availability.

[1]  Pietro Valdastri,et al.  Evaluation of a novel tablet application for improvement in colonoscopy training and mentoring (with video). , 2017, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[2]  Ludger Klimek,et al.  Visual analogue scales (VAS): Measuring instruments for the documentation of symptoms and therapy monitoring in cases of allergic rhinitis in everyday health care , 2017, Allergo Journal International.

[3]  J. Hay,et al.  Changing Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Reducing Distractions for Patient Safety , 2016, Gastroenterology nursing : the official journal of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates.

[4]  Christopher D. Jensen,et al.  Factors influencing variation in physician adenoma detection rates: a theory-based approach for performance improvement. , 2016, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[5]  Nick Sevdalis,et al.  The Impact of Operating Room Distractions on Stress, Workload, and Teamwork. , 2015, Annals of surgery.

[6]  A. Faulx,et al.  Simulator training in colonoscopy: when less is better. , 2015, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[7]  Kai Matthes,et al.  Strategies for training in diagnostic upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial. , 2012, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[8]  J. Neily,et al.  Improving Patient Safety and Optimizing Nursing Teamwork Using Crew Resource Management Techniques , 2012, The Journal of nursing administration.

[9]  R. Sedlack.  Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. , 2011, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[10]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  Implementing standardized operating room briefings and debriefings at a large regional medical center. , 2009, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[11]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[12]  J. Church,et al.  Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer , 2002, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[13]  O W Cass,et al.  Training to Competence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Plea for Continuous Measuring of Objective End Points , 1999, Endoscopy.