Nurses often function as capsule endoscopy “pre-readers” to save physicians' time and potentially increase diagnostic yield. Training pre-readers is time consuming, not standardized, and may not be feasible during regular business hours. A way to evaluate the progress and accuracy of pre-readers is needed to ensure competency. The aim of this study was to introduce a feedback and progress assessment tool for training novice capsule endoscopy pre-readers. We created a 1-page form with listings of potential findings for each segment of the examination. Findings could be circled or written in. The trainee reviewed capsule studies and filled out the form on each of 220 patients. The physician reviewers subsequently critiqued the data forms, providing feedback regarding missed lesions, overcalls, and overall agreement. Our trainee achieved consistent agreement with the physician reviewers, after reading 80 studies. In conclusion, a simple, 1-page standardized data sheet can be used to facilitate training of novice capsule pre-readers without significant time commitment from the supervising physician. Future studies may validate this resource-efficient instrument as a training and assessment tool for nurses, physicians, and other practitioners learning capsule endoscopy.

females (≥55 years) with ICD-9 codes specific for IDA.n=124,460 underwent both upper & lower endoscopy during the one year evaluated.If up to 30% may have unexpalined IDA after standard endoscopic evaluation, we would expect n=37,338 with a potential need for additional SB evaluation.We observed n=30,088 contrast radiography studies performed and while despite known better sensitivity for identifying SB mucosal lesions, only n=7,894 CE studies were performed (21% of expected).In addition, we further identified n=127,969 individuals with IDA and GI bleeding (using ICD-9 codes specific for GI bleeding) who had both upper & lower endoscopy within the one year studied, n=38,636 contrast radiography studies and n=16,513 CE studies were performed in this sub-cohort.Conclusions: Using a large US-based medical claims database, we found potential underutilization of CE in the evaluation of patients with unexplained IDA.Despite its known inferior sensitivity compared to CE in evaluating SB mucosa, we observed a high use of contrast radiography studies.These findings are despite current published data demonstrating the diagnostic value of CE in males and selected females with IDA who had a negative standard endoscopic evaluation.