Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Training: Global Perceptions of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellows in the USA

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted numerous facets of healthcare workers’ lives. There have also been significant changes in Gastroenterology (GI) fellowship training as a result of the challenges presented by the pandemic.

Aims

We conducted a national survey of Gastroenterology fellows to evaluate fellows’ perceptions, changes in clinical duties, and education during the pandemic.

Methods

A survey was sent to Gastroenterology (GI) fellows in the USA. Information regarding redeployment, fellow restriction in endoscopy, outpatient clinics and inpatient consults, impact on educational activities, and available wellness resources was obtained. Fellows’ level of agreement with adjustments to clinical duties was also assessed.

Results

One hundred and seventy-seven Gastroenterology fellows responded, and 29.4% were redeployed to non-GI services during the pandemic. COVID-19 impacted all aspects of GI fellowship training in the USA (endoscopy, outpatient clinics, inpatient consults, educational activities). Fellows’ level of agreement in changes to various aspects of fellowship varied. 72.5% of respondents reported that their programs provided them with increased wellness resources to cope with the additional stress during the pandemic. For respondents with children, 17.6% reported no support with childcare.

Conclusions

Our results show that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted GI fellowship training in the USA in multiple domains, including gastrointestinal endoscopy, inpatient consults, outpatient clinics, and educational conferences. Our study highlights the importance of considering and incorporating fellows’ viewpoints, as changes are made in response to the ongoing pandemic.

     

Endoscopic therapies for small-bowel bleeding

Video capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have revolutionized the way bleeding lesions of the small bowel are diagnosed, localized, and treated. Many of the standard techniques for treating upper or lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding, including bipolar electrocoagulation, argon plasma coagulation, injection therapy, and polypectomy, may be applied to bleeding in the small bowel. Rarer conditions, such as small-bowel varices and blue rubber band nevus syndrome, also have the potential to be managed endoscopically. The diagnostic yield of device-assisted enteroscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding ranges from 50% to 90%, and both technical and clinical success in achieving hemostasis have been demonstrated in several large studies.     

Evaluation and management of intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Cholangiocarcinomas are rare biliary tract tumors that are often challenging to diagnose and treat. Cholangiocarcinomas are generally categorized as intrahepatic or extrahepatic depending on their anatomic location. The majority of patients with cholangiocarcinoma do not have any of the known or suspected risk factors and present with advanced disease. The optimal evaluation and management of patients with cholangiocarcinoma requires thoughtful integration of clinical information, imaging studies, cytology and/or histology, as well as prompt multidisciplinary evaluation. The current review focuses on recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cholangiocarcinoma and, in particular, on the role of endoscopy, surgery, transplantation, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, and liver‐directed therapies in the curative or palliative treatment of these individuals. Cancer 2016;122:1349–1369 . © 2016 American Cancer Society.     

Endoscopic therapy of small-bowel neoplasms

Although many patients with small-bowel tumors require surgical resection, the incorporation of device-assisted enteroscopy into clinical practice has changed the management of smaller tumors and polyps, particularly in those with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis. The endoscopic management of select patients with small-bowel tumors can reduce the incidence of polyp-related complications (intussusception, obstruction, bleeding, and malignant transformation) and may reduce the need for surgical intervention.     

Gastric electric stimulation for the treatment of gastroparesis

Gastric electric stimulation is an emerging therapy for refractory gastroparesis. Several methods have been used to electrically stimulate the stomach. Initial studies used gastric electrical pacing, which entrains and paces the gastric slow waves at a slightly higher rate than the patient’s normal myoelectric frequency of 3 cycles per minute (cpm). The technique currently practiced uses high-frequency, low-energy stimulation at four times the basal rate (12 cpm). Results from published studies with high-frequency stimulation reveal an improvement in symptoms, primarily of nausea and vomiting, and primarily in patients with diabetic gastroparesis, with only a modest change in gastric emptying. As treatment with gastric electric stimulation evolves, further delineation of its overall effectiveness, the type of patient that will likely respond, optimal electrode placement(s), and stimulus parameters should be explored.     

Predictive Factors for Clinical Improvement with Enterra Gastric Electric Stimulation Treatment for Refractory Gastroparesis

The objectives of this study were to determine the clinical response to Enterra gastric electric stimulation (GES) in patients with refractory gastroparesis and to determine factors associated with a favorable response. METHODS: This study was conducted in patients undergoing Enterra GES for refractory gastroparesis. Symptoms were scored before and after GES implantation using the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) with additional questions about abdominal pain and global clinical response. RESULTS: During an 18-month period, 29 patients underwent GES implantation. Follow-up data were available for 28 patients, with average follow-up of 148 days. At follow-up, 14 of 28 patients felt improved, 8 remained the same, and 6 worsened. The overall GCSI significantly decreased with improvement in the nausea/vomiting subscore and the post-prandial subscore, but no improvement in the bloating subscore or abdominal pain. The decrease in GCSI was greater for diabetic patients than idiopathic patients. Patients with main symptom of nausea/vomiting had a greater improvement than patients with the main symptom of abdominal pain. Patients taking narcotic analgesics at the time of implant had a poorer response compared to patients who were not. CONCLUSIONS: GES resulted in clinical improvement in 50% of patients with refractory gastroparesis. Three clinical parameters were associated with a favorable clinical response: (1) diabetic rather than idiopathic gastroparesis, (2) nausea/vomiting rather than abdominal pain as the primary symptom, and (3) independence from narcotic analgesics prior to stimulator implantation. Knowledge of these three factors may allow improved patient selection for GES.