Evaluating ERCP Training for Nursing Professionals: Identifying Gaps via an International Survey to Develop a Standardized Curriculum
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ERCP is a complex endoscopic procedure that demands highly skilled nurses and technicians. However, ERCP training faces significant challenges due to the lack of a standardized curriculum, leading to variations in training content, duration, and structure. This often leaves nurses feeling underprepared to manage the procedural and patient care complexities involved. This study aims to assess the current state of ERCP training among nursing professionals, identify key areas for improvement, and establish a foundation for developing a standardized ERCP nursing curriculum. An international survey was conducted from May to September 2024, targeting endoscopic nurses engaged in ERCP across four global regions: Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North America. The survey was distributed electronically to 58 endoscopic nurses, who were invited to share insights on their training regimens, procedural involvement, and perceived levels of preparedness. Data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively and the analysis aimed to identify common themes, strengths, and areas for improvement in the training processes [ 1 ]. Over 70% of respondents worked in tertiary care hospitals, with more than 80% performing ERCPs weekly or daily. Additionally, 72.4% reported being able to assist with advanced ERCP techniques, such as cholangioscopy, laser therapy, and biliary radiofrequency ablation. A significant majority, 81%, indicated they utilized common language and standardized communication during procedures, and 77.6% had access to ERCP educational resources. However, only 50% experienced consistent procedural training, and 32.8% found the learning objectives unclear. Furthermore, 51.7% lacked hands-on access to ERCP accessories outside of procedures, and 34.5% received no formal feedback during their training. Key challenges identified included managing complex equipment, understanding hepatobiliary anatomy, achieving technical coordination with physicians, and interpreting fluoroscopic images. Respondents emphasized the importance of clear training objectives, better pre-procedural preparation, and consistent teaching methods. Many also cited a need for pre-procedure learning packages, instructional videos, and additional practice equipment to enhance their preparation. Essential areas of pre-training knowledge highlighted by respondents included anatomy – especially of the biliary tree, clinical indications for ERCP, and familiarity with procedural tools and terminology. Observing experienced staff and accessing pre-training resources were also noted as highly beneficial. Significant training gaps remain in ERCP education, including the need for clearer objectives and intraprocedural communication, improved pre-procedural resources, more hands-on practice, and consistent evaluation. Respondents prioritized GI anatomy, pre-procedure learning materials, and hands-on practice as the top training needs, underscoring the importance of a more structured and standardized approach to ERCP training. Publication History Article published online: 27 March 2025 © 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0,022 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».