Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry

R. Yadlapati, R. N. Keswani, K. B. Dunbar, A. J. Gawron, C. P. Gyawali, P. J. Kahrilas, P. O. Katz, D. Katzka, S. J. Spechler, R. Tatum, J. E. Pandolfino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Competent interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level. Methods: A total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups-expert test-takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees ("trainee test-taker"; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test-takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test-taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills. Key Results: The HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65-80%, 85-90% (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90-95%, respectively. Conclusions & Inferences: Using a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalNeurogastroenterology and Motility
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2016

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Manometry
Physicians
Pressure
Hiatal Hernia
Mental Competency
Consensus

Keywords

  • Angoff Method
  • Competency
  • Esophageal manometry
  • Standard setting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Yadlapati, R., Keswani, R. N., Dunbar, K. B., Gawron, A. J., Gyawali, C. P., Kahrilas, P. J., ... Pandolfino, J. E. (Accepted/In press). Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterology and Motility. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12971

Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry. / Yadlapati, R.; Keswani, R. N.; Dunbar, K. B.; Gawron, A. J.; Gyawali, C. P.; Kahrilas, P. J.; Katz, P. O.; Katzka, D.; Spechler, S. J.; Tatum, R.; Pandolfino, J. E.

In: Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yadlapati, R, Keswani, RN, Dunbar, KB, Gawron, AJ, Gyawali, CP, Kahrilas, PJ, Katz, PO, Katzka, D, Spechler, SJ, Tatum, R & Pandolfino, JE 2016, 'Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry', Neurogastroenterology and Motility. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12971
Yadlapati, R. ; Keswani, R. N. ; Dunbar, K. B. ; Gawron, A. J. ; Gyawali, C. P. ; Kahrilas, P. J. ; Katz, P. O. ; Katzka, D. ; Spechler, S. J. ; Tatum, R. ; Pandolfino, J. E. / Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry. In: Neurogastroenterology and Motility. 2016.
@article{0bee4e1ee8274eadbd60b7fe9d26fcf6,
title = "Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry",
abstract = "Background: Competent interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level. Methods: A total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups-expert test-takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees ({"}trainee test-taker{"}; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test-takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test-taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills. Key Results: The HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65-80{\%}, 85-90{\%} (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90-95{\%}, respectively. Conclusions & Inferences: Using a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.",
keywords = "Angoff Method, Competency, Esophageal manometry, Standard setting",
author = "R. Yadlapati and Keswani, {R. N.} and Dunbar, {K. B.} and Gawron, {A. J.} and Gyawali, {C. P.} and Kahrilas, {P. J.} and Katz, {P. O.} and D. Katzka and Spechler, {S. J.} and R. Tatum and Pandolfino, {J. E.}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1111/nmo.12971",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Neurogastroenterology and Motility",
issn = "1350-1925",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry

AU - Yadlapati, R.

AU - Keswani, R. N.

AU - Dunbar, K. B.

AU - Gawron, A. J.

AU - Gyawali, C. P.

AU - Kahrilas, P. J.

AU - Katz, P. O.

AU - Katzka, D.

AU - Spechler, S. J.

AU - Tatum, R.

AU - Pandolfino, J. E.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Background: Competent interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level. Methods: A total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups-expert test-takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees ("trainee test-taker"; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test-takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test-taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills. Key Results: The HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65-80%, 85-90% (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90-95%, respectively. Conclusions & Inferences: Using a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.

AB - Background: Competent interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level. Methods: A total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups-expert test-takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees ("trainee test-taker"; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test-takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test-taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills. Key Results: The HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65-80%, 85-90% (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90-95%, respectively. Conclusions & Inferences: Using a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.

KW - Angoff Method

KW - Competency

KW - Esophageal manometry

KW - Standard setting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995488380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995488380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/nmo.12971

DO - 10.1111/nmo.12971

M3 - Article

JO - Neurogastroenterology and Motility

JF - Neurogastroenterology and Motility

SN - 1350-1925

ER -