Attention to landmarks within the upper GI tract such as the Z‐line marking the squamocolumnar junction, the location of the hiatus, the various regions of the stomach (cardia vs. fundus, body vs. antrum, lesser curve vs. greater curvature, incisura angularis) should also be considered during upper endoscopic training. In endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) training, knowledge of vascular anatomy forms the linchpin for orientation and imaging of many intrathoracic and intra‐abdominal structures. Without this understanding, it is impossible for the endoscopist to accurately communicate the location of observed pathology.
Some knowledge of surgical anatomy is also essential. The endoscopist should know the implications of an end‐to‐end versus end‐to‐side versus side‐to‐side anastomosis. Without this understanding, it is possible to perforate the bowel while attempting to navigate the scope through a dead‐end or blind segment.
Assessment of scope navigation requires the consideration of efficiency, patient comfort, and success at reaching the desired end point. Further assessment of navigation skills will be incorporated in the section on mucosal evaluation. Clearly, excellent control of the scope is required to thoroughly evaluate the entire mucosal surface.
Coordinating all of these maneuvers may seem overwhelming to a novice endoscopist, particularly if they occur during a particularly challenging point in an endoscopy. This raises several key points for the training of endoscopy. As these points are outlined, consider your own experience with trainees who are attempting to learn how to traverse the pylorus in upper endoscopy or to resolve a loop in lower endoscopy for example. The first training point is the need for using a common terminology during endoscopy [3, 4]. This is particularly important when several trainers are involved in training the same individual over time or when there is a potential for misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It is important to be as specific as possible in instruction so that the trainee understands what is to be accomplished, how it is to be accomplished, and how to assess the level of success. As an example, providing a specific instruction, such as giving a directional reference of “12 o’clock,” is more useful than “tip up.” Whenever possible, orienting the learner to the video image is preferable to providing instruction describing movements [11, 12].
Figure 2.1 An example of a stepwise or “progressive” model of simulation‐based training for endoscopy whereby learners gradually complete more difficult tasks as their skills improved. The simulators are matched to each task.
A second important consideration when giving feedback on performance during endoscopy is the influence of cognitive overload or dual task interference [13–15]. If a specific situation is particularly challenging to an individual, then they may not be able to pay attention to other “distractions” such as the voice of an instructor because all of their concentration is directed to the task at hand. This implies that feedback on performance should not be constant or ongoing, but rather be intermittent and focused. In particular, in situations where decision‐making may be involved, it may be more useful to have the trainee pause during the endoscopy, stabilize their position, and direct their attention to the trainer. This requires a significant level of trust and rapport between the trainer and trainee, and again illustrates the importance of attending to all aspects of training, including the training environment.
The concept of cognitive overload during endoscopy also illustrates the importance of using specific learning objectives at an appropriate level of difficulty for the learner. Learning activities should be focused on simple, well‐defined, and achievable points. Using a stepwise educational program can be useful since as each new skill is acquired, gradual introduction of progressively more difficult components of each task becomes easier as they build on prior successes [16]. Ideally, these steps are acquired along with conscious understanding of the steps and how they were taught, allowing the trainee to become a future trainer. This “progressive” learning approach can also be incorporated into simulation‐based training (Figure 2.1).
Overcoming obstacles
This section refers to difficulties that can be encountered in a variety of aspects of endoscopic procedures. Strategies to navigate across sphincters, around sharp curves, and through areas of resistance typically require achievement of a basic level of competence in navigation prior to attempting to master these challenges. Novice endoscopists typically struggle with traversing the pylorus if they have not mastered when to use small amounts of tip deflection rather than large movements via torque application in order to generate rotation of the scope upon its long axis for example. Another area of uncertainty for trainees is how much resistance is normal, such as when encountering paradoxical scope movement. This becomes particularly important when traversing strictures or altered anatomy (e.g., advanced diverticular disease in colonoscopy, Billroth II anastomosis in ERCP, etc.). Again, this requires both attention to a cognitive component and a technical component of training. Although it may technically be possible to traverse a malignant stricture, clearly consideration must first be given in training to the potential advantages and disadvantages of other modalities or approaches before this is attempted. A similar analogy applies to the difficult cannulation during ERCP. A trainee can too easily become consumed with technical efforts to overcome the obstacle and must not lose sight of the relative indications for persistence as the procedure proceeds. What may seem obvious and commonplace to an experienced endoscopist may not be known or understood by trainees. This also highlights the importance of checking understanding with trainees during endoscopic training, particularly if the trainee is new to the trainer.
Recognition and prevention of difficulties are a major component of ensuring patient safety and comfort. This may require using a lower setting of air insufflation for instance or defining the amount of the procedure that should be performed by trainees (e.g., limiting polypectomy, sphincterotomy, or other therapeutic steps until the preliminary diagnostic skills have been mastered). This emphasizes the importance of establishing clear limits on what the trainee is expected to do during a procedure and when the trainer will take over the procedure. By doing this, the teacher will manage the emotional aspects of learning better and avoid the negative connotation of taking over a procedure. The other important components of training (covered in the Chapter 3) include the medicolegal aspects, appropriate informed consent, and so on.
Inspection
Once the scope has been advanced to the desired limit, and that location has been confirmed in some way, the next step is to carefully withdraw the scope while thoroughly examining the entire mucosal surface. This requires essentially the same skills as in scope navigation. Again, although this can be viewed as a technical component, there is no doubt that cognition plays an important role. Detection of specific lesions, such as the findings of celiac disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, and so on, is more related to an awareness of what is being looked for rather than being solely based upon technique. This is particularly relevant to endoscopic reporting, in which a thorough description of tumor characteristics and relation to landmarks may have great implications for the surgical approach for instance, and a repeat endoscopy will be required if communication between endoscopist and the surgeon is not sufficiently specific and detailed. Training in the cognitive aspects of image interpretation and assessment can be developed by didactic