Association of training standards in pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition in European training centers with formal national recognition of the subspecialty: a survey of the ESPGHAN National Societies Network 2016-2019

Papadopoulou, Alexandra; Ribes-Koninckx, Carmen; Baker, Alastair; Noni, Maria; Koutri, Eleni; Karagianni, Maria-Vasiliki; Protheroe, Sue; Guarino, Alfredo; Mas, Emmanuel; Wilschanski, Michael; Roman, Enriqueta; Escher, Johanna; Furlano, Raoul I.; Posovszky, Carsten; Hoffman, Ilse; Veres, Gabor; Bronsky, Jiri; Hauer, Almuthe Christine; Tjesic-Drinkovic, Duska; Fotoulaki, Maria; Orel, Rok; Urbonas, Vaidotas; Kansu, Aydan; Georgieva, Miglena; Thomsonv, Mike; Benninga, Marc; Thapar, Nikhil; Kelly, Deirdre und Koletzko, Berthold (2022): Association of training standards in pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition in European training centers with formal national recognition of the subspecialty: a survey of the ESPGHAN National Societies Network 2016-2019. In: Annals of Gastroenterology, Bd. 35, Nr. 3: S. 317-324

Abstract

Background This survey evaluated the effects of the recognition of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition (PGHN) on European PGHN training centers. Methods Standardized questionnaires were collected from training centers via the presidents/representatives of the National Societies Network of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, from June 2016 to December 2019. Results A total of 100 training centers from 19 countries participated in the survey: 55 from 12 countries where PGHN is formally recognized (Group 1) and 45 from 7 countries where it is not (Group 2). Training centers in Group 2 were less likely to have an integrated endoscopy suite, a written training curriculum and a training lead (P=0.059, P<0.001 and P=0.012, respectively). Trainees in Group 2 were less likely to be exposed to an adequate number of diagnostic endoscopies, while no differences were found in relation to liver biopsies. Half of the training centers in both Groups do not have dedicated beds for PGHN patients, while in 64% and 58%, respectively, trainees do not participate in on-call programs for PGHN emergencies. Research training is mandatory in 26% of the centers. The duration of training, as well as the assessment and accreditation policies, vary between countries. Conclusions This study has revealed significant discrepancies and gaps in infrastructure and training programs, training leadership, and assessment of training and certification across European training centers in PGHN. Strategies to support the recognition of PGHN and to standardize and improve training conditions should be developed and implemented.

• Dokumententyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
• Fakultät: Medizin
• Themengebiete: 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
• ISSN: 1108-7471
• Sprache: Englisch