Researchers have explored the benefits and applications of virtual reality (VR) in different scenarios. VR possesses much potential and its application in education has seen much research interest lately. However, little systematic work currently exists on how researchers have applied immersive VR for higher education purposes that considers the usage of both high-end and budget head-mounted displays (HMDs). Hence, we propose using systematic mapping to identify design elements of existing research dedicated to the application of VR in higher education. The reviewed articles were acquired by extracting key information from documents indexed in four scientific digital libraries, which were filtered systematically using exclusion, inclusion, semi-automatic, and manual methods. Our review emphasizes three key points: the current domain structure in terms of the learning contents, the VR design elements, and the learning theories, as a foundation for successful VR-based learning. The mapping was conducted between application domains and learning contents and between design elements and learning contents. Our analysis has uncovered several gaps in the application of VR in the higher education sphere—for instance, learning theories were not often considered in VR application development to assist and guide toward learning outcomes. Furthermore, the evaluation of educational VR applications has primarily focused on usability of the VR apps instead of learning outcomes and immersive VR has mostly been a part of experimental and development work rather than being applied regularly in actual teaching. Nevertheless, VR seems to be a promising sphere as this study identifies 18 application domains, indicating a better reception of this technology in many disciplines. The identified gaps point toward unexplored regions of VR design for education, which could motivate future work in the field.

A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda

ESGE recommends against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction; preoperative biliary drainage should be reserved for patients with cholangitis, severe symptomatic jaundice (e. g., intense pruritus), or delayed surgery, or for before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in jaundiced patients. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the endoscopic placement of a 10-mm diameter self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for preoperative biliary drainage of malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends SEMS insertion for palliative drainage of of extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends against the insertion of uncovered SEMS for the drainage of extrahepatic biliary obstruction of unconfirmed etiology. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE suggests against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar obstruction. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends uncovered SEMSs for palliative drainage of malignant hilar obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends temporary insertion of multiple plastic stents or of a fully covered SEMS for treatment of benign biliary strictures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of plastic stent(s) to treat bile duct leaks that are not due to transection of the common bile duct or common hepatic duct. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

/pdf/endoscopic-biliary-stenting-indications-choice-of-stents-and-2m15ls69kt.pdf

Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline - Updated October 2017.

Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review

Background Endoscopy has traditionally been taught with novices practicing on real patients under the supervision of experienced endoscopists. Recently, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought simulation training to the forefront. Simulation training can provide trainees with the chance to practice their skills in a learner-centred, risk-free environment. It is important to ensure that skills gained through simulation positively transfer to the clinical environment. This updated review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Objectives To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. Search methods We searched the following health professions, educational, and computer databases until 12 July 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. We also searched the grey literature until November 2017. Selection criteria We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing VR endoscopy simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training with outcomes measured on humans in the clinical setting, including conventional patient-based training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation, or no training. We also included trials comparing two different methods of VR training. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. We pooled data for meta-analysis where participant groups were similar, studies assessed the same intervention and comparator, and had similar definitions of outcome measures. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes when studies reported the same or different outcome measures, respectively. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. Main results We included 18 trials (421 participants; 3817 endoscopic procedures). We judged three trials as at low risk of bias. Ten trials compared VR training with no training, five trials with conventional endoscopy training, one trial with another form of endoscopy simulation training, and two trials compared two different methods of VR training. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across our four comparisons, we did not perform a meta-analysis for several outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, low, or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus no training: There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect on composite score of competency (MD 3.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 6.36; 1 trial, 24 procedures; low-quality evidence). Composite score of competency was based on 5-point Likert scales assessing seven domains: atraumatic technique, colonoscope advancement, use of instrument controls, flow of procedure, use of assistants, knowledge of specific procedure, and overall performance. Scoring range was from 7 to 35, a higher score representing a higher level of competence. Virtual reality training compared to no training likely provides participants with some benefit, as measured by independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; 6 trials, 815 procedures; moderate-quality evidence). We evaluated overall rating of performance (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75; 1 trial, 18 procedures), visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00; 1 trial, 55 procedures), performance time (MD -0.20 minutes, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.30; 2 trials, 29 procedures), and patient discomfort (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.35; 2 trials, 145 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. No trials reported procedure-related complications or critical flaws (e.g. bleeding, luminal perforation) (3 trials, 550 procedures; moderate-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus conventional patient-based training: One trial reported composite score of competency but did not provide sufficient data for quantitative analysis. Virtual reality training compared to conventional patient-based training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 2 trials, 174 procedures; low-quality evidence). We evaluated performance time (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.80; 2 trials, 34 procedures), overall rating of performance (MD -0.90, 95% CI -4.40 to 2.60; 1 trial, 16 procedures), and visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.0, 95% CI -6.02 to 6.02; 1 trial, 18 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. Virtual reality training in combination with conventional training appears to be advantageous over VR training alone. No trials reported any procedure-related complications or critical flaws (3 trials, 72 procedures; very low-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus another form of endoscopy simulation: Based on one study, there were no differences between groups with respect to composite score of competency, performance time, and visualisation of mucosa. Virtual reality training in combination with another form of endoscopy simulation training did not appear to confer any benefit compared to VR training alone.Two methods of virtual reality training: Based on one study, a structured VR simulation-based training curriculum compared to self regulated learning on a VR simulator appears to provide benefit with respect to a composite score evaluating competency. Based on another study, a progressive-learning curriculum that sequentially increases task difficulty provides benefit with respect to a composite score of competency over the structured VR training curriculum. Authors' conclusions VR simulation-based training can be used to supplement early conventional endoscopy training for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, we found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of VR simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training. The quality of the current evidence was low due to inadequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding of outcome assessment in several trials. Further trials are needed that are at low risk of bias, utilise outcome measures with strong evidence of validity and reliability, and examine the optimal nature and duration of training.

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy

Introduction Training procedural skills in GI endoscopy once focused on threshold numbers. As threshold numbers poorly reflect individual competence, the focus gradually shifts towards a more individual approach. Tools to assess and document individual learning progress are being developed and incorporated in dedicated training curricula. However, there is a lack of consensus and training guidelines differ worldwide, which reflects uncertainties on optimal set-up of a training programme. Aims The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the currently available literature for the use of training and assessment methods in GI endoscopy. Second, we aimed to identify the role of simulator-based training as well as the value of continuous competence assessment in patient-based training. Third, we aimed to propose a structured training curriculum based on the presented evidence. Methods A literature search was carried out in the available medical and educational literature databases. The results were systematically reviewed and studies were included using a predefined protocol with independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus round. Results The literature search yielded 5846 studies. Ninety-four relevant studies on simulators, assessment methods, learning curves and training programmes for GI endoscopy met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies on simulator validation were included. Good validity was demonstrated for four simulators. Twenty-three studies reported on simulator training and learning curves, including 17 randomised control trials. Increased performance on a virtual reality (VR) simulator was shown in all studies. Improved performance in patient-based assessment was demonstrated in 14 studies. Four studies reported on the use of simulators for assessment of competence levels. Current simulators lack the discriminative power to determine competence levels in patient-based endoscopy. Eight out of 14 studies on colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endosonography reported on learning curves in patient-based endoscopy and proved the value of this approach for measuring performance. Ten studies explored the numbers needed to gain competence, but the proposed thresholds varied widely between them. Five out of nine studies describing the development and evaluation of assessment tools for GI endoscopy provided insight into the performance of endoscopists. Five out of seven studies proved that intense training programmes result in good performance. Conclusions The use of validated VR simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning of practical skills. Learning curves are valuable for the continuous assessment of performance and are more relevant than threshold numbers. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating simulation-based as well as patient-based training in GI endoscopy. A complete curriculum with the assessment of competence throughout training needs to be developed for all GI endoscopy procedures.

https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/65/4/607.full.pdf

Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review

Background and study aims: Despite significant interest from health care authorities, patient organizations, and insurance companies, data on procedural outcome and quality of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in general and academic practice are sparse. The aims of this study were to assess procedural outcome of ERCP within a large prospective registry in The Netherlands, and to evaluate associations between endoscopist-related factors and procedural outcome. Methods: All endoscopists performing ERCP in The Netherlands were invited to register their ERCPs over a 1-year period using the Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP (RAF-E). The primary outcome measure was procedural success. A priori difficulty level of the procedure was classified according to Schutz. Baseline characteristics of the endoscopist (e. g. previous experience) were recorded at study entry. Regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of procedural outcome. Results: A total of 8575 ERCPs were registered by 171 endoscopists from 61 centers, constituting about 50 % of all ERCPs performed nationally during the study period. Overall procedural success was 85.8 %. Intact papillary anatomy was present in 5106 patients (59.5 %): procedural success in this subgroup of patients was 83.4 % vs. 89.4 % after sphincterotomy (P  Conclusions: The nationwide prospective RAF-E registry proved to be a valuable tool to gain insight into procedural outcome of ERCPs.

Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance: results of a nationwide quality registry.

Background and study aim: Measures for competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during training are poorly defined. Currently, various training and accreditation programs base verification of competence on performance of a minimum number of procedures. There is a general awareness that procedural competence certification should be based on objective performance criteria. Continuous self-assessment using a Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP (RAF-E) can provide insight into trainee performance. The study aim was to express development in ERCP competence as a learning curve. Methods: ERCP trainees at a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands were invited to participate. Performed procedures were appraised using RAF-E. Indication for each ERCP and presence of a virgin papilla were documented. Complexity was graded on a 3-point scale. The primary outcome parameter was common bile duct (CBD) cannulation success rate. Success of the intended therapeutic interventions was additionally expressed as a learning curve. Results: 15 trainees were included. 1541 ERCPs (624 procedures in native papillary anatomy) were assessed through RAF-E. Unassisted CBD cannulation success rate improved from 36 % at baseline to 85 % after 200 procedures (P  Conclusions: Learning curves are a valuable means for assessing competence in ERCP. Differences in learning curves can be shown with RAF-E. Verification of competence should be based on actual performance, instead of minimum numbers.

/pdf/competence-development-in-ercp-the-learning-curve-of-novice-4g3y6kr2ua.pdf

Competence development in ERCP: the learning curve of novice trainees.

Objective To develop a feasible model for monitoring short-term outcome of clinical care trajectories for hospitals in the Netherlands using data obtained from hospital information systems for identifying hospital variation. Study design Retrospective analysis of collected data from hospital information systems combined with clinical indicator definitions to define and compare short-term outcomes for three gastrointestinal pathways using the concept of Textbook Outcome. Setting 62 Dutch hospitals. Participants 45 848 unique gastrointestinal patients discharged in 2015. Main outcome measure A broad range of clinical outcomes including length of stay, reintervention, readmission and doctor–patient counselling. Results Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for gallstone disease (n=4369), colonoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; n=19 330) and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening (n=22 149) were submitted to five suitable clinical indicators per treatment. The percentage of all patients who met all five criteria was 54%±9% (SD) for ERCP treatment. For IBD this was 47%±7% of the patients, and for colon cancer screening this number was 85%±14%. Conclusion This study shows that reusing data obtained from hospital information systems combined with clinical indicator definitions can be used to express short-term outcomes using the concept of Textbook Outcome without any excess registration. This information can provide meaningful insight into the clinical care trajectory on the level of individual patient care. Furthermore, this concept can be applied to many clinical trajectories within gastroenterology and beyond for monitoring and improving the clinical pathway and outcome for patients.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/2/e019405.full.pdf

Is Textbook Outcome a valuable composite measure for short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal treatments in the Netherlands using hospital information system data? A retrospective cohort study

https://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(14)02193-2/pdf

Vivian E. Ekkelenkamp

Papers

Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review

Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance: results of a nationwide quality registry.

Competence development in ERCP: the learning curve of novice trainees.

Is Textbook Outcome a valuable composite measure for short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal treatments in the Netherlands using hospital information system data? A retrospective cohort study

Simulated colonoscopy training leads to improved performance during patient-based assessment