Week 5 ACGVGR Long Diversity
Week 5 ACGVGR Long Diversity
Week 5 ACGVGR Long Diversity
ABIM Board Certified physicians need to complete their MOC activities by December 31,
2023 in order for the MOC points to count toward any MOC requirements that are due by
the end of the year. No MOC credit may be awarded after March 1, 2024 for this activity.
MOC QUESTION
Disclosures
Asmeen Bhatt, MD, PhD, FACG
Dr. Bhatt has no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
*All of the relevant financial relationships listed for these individuals have been mitigated
10
11
12
13
Many women (up to 40%) will reduce their commitment to part time or leave
medicine within 6 years
Competing interests between work and home life
Bias, unequal wage, pregnancy and motherhood related discrimination
“Third shift” work at home
Lack of formal leadership training for women
14
15
16
17
18
Fasiha Kanwal MD, MSHS Norah Terrault MD, MPH Uma Mahadevan MD Maria Abreu MD Linda Nguyen MD
Professor, Section Chief, Baylor Professor, Chief GI and Liver Professor, IBD Center Director, Professor, IBD Center Professor, Director GI Motility
Editor in Chief, CGH USC UCSF Director, U. Miami and Neurogastroenterology,
HCC, Patient Reported Viral Hepatitis Pregnancy and IBD Immunology, IBD Stanford
Outcomes in Cirrhosis Motility, IBS, Gastroparesis
19
Fasiha Kanwal MD, MSHS Norah Terrault MD, MPH Uma Mahadevan MD Maria Abreu MD Linda Nguyen MD
Professor, Section Chief, Baylor Professor, Chief GI and Liver Professor, IBD Center Director, Professor, IBD Center Professor, Director GI Motility
Editor in Chief, CGH USC UCSF Director, U. Miami and Neurogastroenterology,
HCC, Patient Reported Viral Hepatitis Pregnancy and IBD Immunology, IBD Stanford
Outcomes in Cirrhosis Motility, IBS, Gastroparesis
20
Kanwal F, et al. Hepatology. 2022 Mar 1. [epub] Active HCV Cured HCC NAFLD ETOH
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
• Background
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Percent of women
in 2019… 25% Graduating GI fellowship
18% Practicing GI
43
44
• Aims:
• Describe program characteristics
• Identify contributors to gender disparity including barriers and
facilitators influencing women pursuing AEF training
45
46
47
48
49
• In survey, 24.7% women vs 37.5% men (no diff) wanted career in advanced
endoscopy
• Major motivating factors (men and women):
• Strong personal interest
• Preference for procedures
• Encouragement from a mentor
• Wider skill sets for jobs
50
51
52
53
• Individual factors:
• Self advocacy
• Support team of coaches,
sponsors, and mentors
• Combat the “third shift”
(household tasks)
• Allyship
54
• Paradigm shift
55
GIE 2020
Courtesy of Amrita Sethi
56
57
58
• New platforms
59
• Societal involvement
60
61
62
• Conclusion
63
Thank you
64
E RG O N O M I C S I N
ENDOSCOPY –
W H AT D O WO M E N
D O D I F F E R E N T LY ?
65
E RG O N O M I C S
• Ergonomics- Greek words Ergon (work) and Nomos (laws). Term was coined by a
Polish scholar in 1857.
• Definition: an applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people
use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely (Merriam-
Webster Dictionary)
66
W H Y I S I T I M P O RTA N T I N E N D O S C O P Y ?
67
ENDOSCOPY
R E L AT E D I N J U RY
(ERI)
68
E N D O S C O P Y R E L AT E D I N J U RY
Mechanisms
Overuse Injuries (high pinch force)
Prevalence
Repetitive Motions
Sites
• Thumb, Hand, Wrist, Elbow, Shoulder
and Carpel Tunnel Syndrome
Shergill A et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:145–153.
Harvin G. J Clinical Gastroenterol 2014; 48 (7): 590-594.
• Neck and Upper Back
Yung D et al. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;11(10):939-947.
Ridtitid W et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81 (2):294–302.
• Lower Back
69
ENDOSCOPY
R E L AT E D I N J U RY
IN FEMALES
70
E N D O S C O P Y R E L AT E D I N J U RY I N F E M A L E S
• A 2004 survey of 726 laparoscopic surgeons studied the relationship between hand size and difficulty using
surgical instruments: found that the percentage of time subjects reported having difficulty using all
laparoscopic instruments was greater for the Small glove size group compared to both the Medium and Large
groups ( p < 0.001)
• A 2008 survey of U.S. gastroenterology fellows showed that respondents felt like hand size affected the ability
to learn endoscopy and a significant number of trainees, especially females, perceive that their hands are too
small for standard endoscopes
• Korean Study, n=55, Female participants (33%), Severe pain was seen in 47% (26/55), more women than men
reported severe pain (61% vs 40%, respectively, p=0.15)
• A study of 171 endoscopists from Portugal with 55% females, found that female gender was related to higher
number of musculoskeletal injury (P= 0.03) and severe pain (P=0.02)
71
E N D O S C O P Y R E L AT E D I N J U RY I N F E M A L E S
• Survey study of 1698 participants: Rates of Injury-75%. Male Participants – 65.7%; Thumb, neck,
hand/finger, lower back, shoulder, and wrist
• No significant difference in the prevalence of ERI between male and female gastroenterologists
• Females reported upper extremity ERI while males reported lower-back pain-related ERI
• Significant gender differences were noted in the reported mechanisms attributed to ERI
• Most respondents did not discuss ergonomic strategies in their current practice (63%)
• ERI was less likely to be reported in GI physicians who took breaks during endoscopy (P = 0.002)
• Approximately 79% of the female participants reported new-onset ERI related to pregnancy
72
P R E V E N T I O N A N D M I T I G AT I O N
73
E N G I N E E R I N G C O N T RO L S
Colonoscope
control
Distal Auxiliary angle (left/right support device
Attachment Cap dial) assist knob/adaptor
74
Cushioned Or Insole
Shoes
Anti-Fatigue
Floor Mats
Compression
Stockings
Two-Piece
Lead Aprons
OTHERS….
75
A D M I N I S T R AT I V E C O N T RO L S
76
A D M I N I S T R AT I V E C O N T RO L S
• Ergonomics “Time Out”:
A 2019 Quality Improvement Project aimed at GI faculty, fellows, nurses and technicians used an
“Ergonomic Checklist” among other measures to educate and improve Endoscopy Ergonomics.
• Endoscopy Schedule:
Incorporating non procedure days for recuperation
• Endoscope Maintenance
77
P E R S O NA L P RO T E C T I V E E Q U I P M E N T
• Endoscopist’s Technique: “Pinkie Maneuver”, Place Shaft on the Bed
• Microbreaks/Stretches: A 2016 study of 56 surgeons showed that incorporating microbreaks with exercises
during surgery resulted in self-reported improvement or no change in their mental focus (88%) and physical
performance (100%) and significantly reduced discomfort in the shoulders. 87%of the surgeons wanted to
incorporate the microbreaks with exercises into their OR routine
• Maintain Physical Fitness: One 2019 article from the Am J Gastroenterol called on endoscopists to train as
“endo-athletes” and adopt the Ergonomic Pentathlon- Equipment (adjusting to appropriate heights), Preparation
(optimizing layout), Teamwork (teaching team best ergonomic practices), Recovery (regular exercising and
stretching between cases) and Reflection (contemplating how to improve ergonomics), as principles to help reduce
risk of injury
78
E RG O N O M I C S
IN ENDOSCOPY
- W H AT D O WO M E N D O
D I F F E R E N T LY ?
79
METHODS
80
Years in practice
<5 years 31 (29%) 13 (31.7%) 18 (27.3%)
5-10 years 32 (30%) 16 (39%) 16 (24.2%) 0.12
>10 years 44 (41.1%) 12 (29.3%) 32 (48.5%)
Practice setting
Academic/University 81 (75.7%) 34 (82.9%) 47 (71.2%)
Private 17 (15.9%) 5 (12.2%) 12 (18.2%) 0.37
Hospital employed 9 (8.4%) 2 (4.9%) 7 (10.6%)
Glove/Hand Size
X-Small 1 (0.9%) 1 (2.4%) 0
Small 21 (19.6%) 20 (48.8%) 1 (1.5%)
Medium 45 (42.1%) 20 (48.8%) 25 (37.9%) 0.00*
Large 30 (28 %) 0 30 (45.4%)
X-Large 10 (9.4%) 0 10 (15.2%)
81
Physician position
Predominantly standing 103 (96.3%) 41 (100%) 62 (93.9%) 0.27
ENDOSCOPY
At physician hip level 70 (65.4%) 28 (68.3%) 42 (63.6%)
0.79
Above physician hip level 30 (28%) 10 (24.4%) 20 (30.3%)
Below physician hip level 7 (6.6%) 3 (7.3%) 4 (6.1%)
Monitor Height
At physician eye level 63 (58.9%) 22 (53.7%) 41 (62.1%)
0.42
STYLES
Above physician eye level 34 (31.8%) 16 (39%) 18 (27.3%)
Below physician eye level 10 (9.3%) 3 (7.3%) 7 (10.6%)
Endoscope tower location Endoscope control hold technique
Behind physician 94 (87.8%) 36 (87.8%) 58 (87.9%)
0.73
In front of physician 6 (5.6%) 3 (7.3%) 3 (4.5%)
To the left of physician 7 (6.6%) 2 (4.9%) 5 (7.6%)
Endoscope wheel locks used frequently?
0.65
Yes 26 (24.3%) 9 (21.9%) 17 (25.8%)
No 81 (75.7%) 32 (78.1%) 49 (74.2%)
Hand predominantly used to turn small wheel on
endoscope
0.03*
Left 68 (63.5%) 21 (51.2%) 47 (71.2%)
Right 39 (36.5%) 20 (48.8%) 19 (28.8%)
Endoscope control hold technique
Umbilical cord inside the forearm 37 (34.6%) 4 (9.8%) 33 (50%) 0.00*
0.01*
Pediatric colonoscope 79 (73.8%) 36 (87.8%) 43 (65.1%)
Regular colonoscope 28 (26.2%) 5 (12.2%) 23 (34.9%)
82
Using the small (left/right deflection) wheel 49 (45.8%) 23 (56.1%) 26 (39.4%) 0.09
Turning your left forearm (that is holding the endoscope 51 (47.7%) 17 (41.5%) 34 (51.5%) 0.31
control)
Hold the shaft with your fingers of left hand 53 (49.5%) 23 (56.1%) 30 (45.5%) 0.28
83
I N J U RY F RO M P E R F O R M I N G E N D O S C O P Y
Injury from performing endoscopy
Yes Female Male p-value
(n=107) (n=41) (n=66)
Experienced any pain or tingling numbness associated with 53 (49.5%) 26 (63.4%) 27(40.9%) 0.02*
performing endoscopy
Pain in wrist 18 (16.8%) 11 (26.8%) 7 (10.6%) 0.02*
Pain in hand, thumb or fingers 43 (40.2%) 20 (48.8%) 23 (34.8%) 0.15
Pain in elbow 8 (7.5%) 3 (7.3%) 5 (7.6%) 0.96
Pain in neck 15 (14%) 8 (19.5%) 7 (10.6%) 0.19
Pain in shoulder 18 (16.8%) 7 (17.1%) 11 (16.7%) 0.95
Pain in upper back 11 (10.3%) 5 (12.2%) 6 (9.1%) 0.60
Pain in lower back 15 (14%) 9 (22%) 6 (9.1%) 0.06
Pain in hip 3 (2.8%) 1 (2.4%) 2 (3%) 0.85
Pain in knee 5 (4.7%) 0 5 (7.6%) 0.07
Pain in ankle 1 (0.9%) 0 1 (1.5%) 0.42
Pain in foot 3 (3.7%) 3 (7.3%) 1 (1.5%) 0.12
Taken time off from work to treat pain, tingling or numbness 9 (8.4%) 1 (2.4%) 8 (12.1%) 0.07
Needed corrective lenses or a change in prescription of lenses 10 (9.3%) 3 (7.3%) 7 (10.6%) 0.57
due to performing endoscopy
84
U N I VA R I AT E A N D M U LT I VA R I AT E A NA LY S I S
85
P R E F E R E N C E S T O I M P ROV E E N D O S C O P Y
E RG O N O M I C S
Preferences to improve ergonomics
Yes Female Male p-value
(n=107) (n=41) (n=66)
Use braces at the site of pain to provide stability 35 (32.7%) 19 (46.3%) 16 (24.2%) 0.01*
Task colleagues (techs, nurses) to remind physician of correct 41 (38.3%) 18 (43.9%) 23 (34.8%) 0.34
posture
External items to help with position (chair, anti-fatigue mat, 43 (40.2%) 19 (46.3%) 24 (36.4%) 0.30
Christmas tree to hold shaft etc.)
Change working posture and use pauses during long procedures 49 (45.8%) 20 (48.8%) 29 (43.9%) 0.62
Re-design endoscopy room (remove unnecessary equipment, install 51 (47.7%) 20 (48.8%) 31 (47%) 0.85
adjustable monitors etc.)
Willing to try new re-designed lighter endoscopes 58 (54.2%) 24 (58.5%) 34 (51.5%) 0.47
Educate oneself about endoscopy ergonomics (attend conferences, 83 (77.6%) 31 (75.6%) 52 (78.8%) 0.70
read journal articles etc.)
86
P R E G NA N C Y A N D E N D O S C O P Y E RG O N O M I C S
87
C O N C LU S I O N S
Survey Participant Characteristics- Females were shorter in height, had smaller hand sizes, performed
fewer weekly case volumes and more males than females performed advanced endoscopic procedures.
Endoscopy Styles- Females preferred holding the endoscope with the umbilical cord outside the forearm,
using the right hand to turn the small wheel and using a pediatric colonoscope to perform colonoscopy in a
petite or low BMI patient.
Technique Preferences- The preferred methods for turning the endoscope shaft and for stabilizing the
endoscope shaft during the procedure were not statistically different between the genders.
Our study is the first to highlight these subtle gender differences in endoscopy styles
88
C O N C LU S I O N S
Injury from performing endoscopy- Overwhelming percentage of gastroenterologists suffer work related
injury, especially females. Most common site on injury is hand, thumb and fingers. Females suffer from
more wrist pain than males.
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of injury with variables- Gender is an independent risk factor for
injury. Working with a GI fellow decreases injury, while higher weekly case volumes and performing
advanced endoscopy procedures do not.
Preferences to improve endoscopy ergonomics- Our study proved a willingness to adopt options to
improve endoscopy ergonomics; will guide our future studies .
These findings provide insight into the needs for techniques to improve endoscopy ergonomics which will
likely prevent future injuries, enhance work efficiency and satisfaction.
We propose that there is a strong need for ergonomic focused specific training for female and male trainees
in gastroenterology
89
T H A N K YO U
90
Questions
Millie D. Long, MD, MPH, FACG (will not be able to join for Q&A)
91
92