You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 67, Issue 6
  • Response to ‘Analysis of learning curves in gastroscopy training: the need for composite measures for defining competence’ by Siau et al

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Response to ‘Analysis of learning curves in gastroscopy training: the need for composite measures for defining competence’ by Siau et al
  1. Stephen Thomas Ward1,
  2. Paul Dunckley2
  1. 1 Centre for Liver Research & NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2 Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mr Stephen Thomas Ward, Centre for Liver Research & NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; drsteveward{at}yahoo.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315191

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We are thankful for the letter of Siau et al 1 in response to our article describing the learning curve to satisfactory completion rates in upper GI endoscopy.2

    We agree that D2 intubation and successful J manoeuvre are insufficient to define competence. Our article’s title stated that we focused on completion rates. We specifically mentioned in our discussion that it is necessary to comply with a host of other measures to be competent. For example, procedural completion and successful J manoeuvre do not ensure complete inspection of the mucosa, nor do they result in correct identification of pathology. We welcome the introduction by Joint Advisory Group of assessment of endoscopic non-technical skills and support direct observation of procedural skills …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors STW drafted response. STW and PD approved final draft.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles