A82 A SURVEY OF TRAINING PATHWAYS AND PRACTICE TRENDS OF ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION IN CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become the established standard for endoscopic removal of large gastrointestinal (GI) lesions and early GI malignancies, with improved outcomes compared to traditional endoscopic techniques and offers an alternative to surgery. However, ESD is technically challenging and requires significant healthcare infrastructure. As such, its adoption in Canada was slow relative to Asia and Europe. Thus far, the practice of ESD has been limited to a small number of tertiary centers. Currently, the availability and practice of ESD across Canada remains unclear. Aims To provide a descriptive overview of the training pathways and practice trends of endoscopists performing ESD in Canada. Methods ESD practitioners across Canada were identified from internal networks and by contacting respective endoscopy units. All endoscopists currently accepting ESD referrals were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey that was distributed via SurveyMonkey. Results 27 ESD practitioners were identified; current survey response rate was 44% although is expected to increase. Median years of independent ESD practice was 5 (IQR 2.75). All practitioners underwent international ESD training of some type. 92% attended short-term training courses. 50% pursued international ESD fellowship training. 92% received training on animal models. 58% and 33% performed hands-on human upper and lower GI ESD respectively prior to independent practice. In practice, 67% of practitioners noted an increase in number of ESD procedures performed per year from 2015 to 2019. 67% rated the awareness of appropriate ESD indications by referring physicians to be “not so aware” or lower. 75% of practitioners report a patient wait time for ESD of 1–3 months. 67% and 75% rated the difficulty of securing endoscopy time and anesthesia support for ESD respectively to be “difficult” or “very difficult”. 75% were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with their institution’s healthcare infrastructure to support ESD. 25% perceived their institution as supportive in expanding the practice of ESD. Conclusions A number of challenges exist for the adoption of ESD in Canada. Training pathways are highly variable, with no set standards and most practitioners pursue international training. In practice, the majority of practitioners express dissatisfaction with their access to necessary infrastructure for performing ESD and feel poorly supported by their centers in expanding its practice. As ESD is becoming the accepted standard in allowing for the minimally invasive treatment of indicated GI lesions; greater collaboration between practitioners, institutions, and healthcare systems is crucial to standardize ESD training and to ensure improved patient access. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».