Gastrointestinal Physiology – 2025 review results

Current priority areas

• 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future
• Science in healthcare: Delivering the NHS Long Term Plan – The Chief Scientific Officer’s strategy

Stakeholder feedback

Feedback collecting through the Curriculum Library survey collected between January 2024 and November 2025. All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

Programme

• First year training activities do not encourage the trainee to become ‘hands on’ and can only learn so much through observation and reflection. Short sighted to have scrapped urodynamics being taught in the second year as we now have a shortage of urodynamic scientists, and GI trainees are keen on being trained in urodynamics.
• At the time of re-designing the curriculum we set it out to have upper and lower GI Physiology on equal footing, which it wasn’t previously. This feedback is in regards to how the new format has worked. I am module lead for years 2 and 3 of the specialist modules for GI STP, and i feel has worked well from an academic perspective. What i need to include more of going forward (i wanted there to be a full cycle before undertaking any tweaks to lecture content), is emerging technologies such as endoflip (though this is in the specialist investigation module) also being covered within upper GI physiology. The reason for the duplication is that ASP students who access the upper GI physiology modules miss out on this teaching with it being in a module that ASPs so far have not accessed, and is relevant to both modules. Generally speaking i don’t think there is anything missing from the curriculum as there is room within the current curriculum to include changes in practice as well as emerging technologies. I do not feel that there is any detriment to GI students by having urodynamics in the first year only. There is scope within the STP as a whole to learn more about this area, such as shadowing a HCS in this discipline or even a research project that included urodynamics if an individual wished to do so.

S-GI-R1 Introduction to Gastrointestinal Physiology

• no feedback received

S-GI-S1 Lower Gastrointestinal Physiology 1

• no feedback received

S-GI-S2 Upper Gastrointestinal Physiology 1

• no feedback received

S-GI-S3 Lower Gastrointestinal Physiology 2

• no feedback received

S-GI-S4 Upper Gastrointestinal Physiology 2

• no feedback received

S-GI-S5 Specialist Investigations in Gastrointestinal Physiology

• no feedback received

Changes made

Module level changes

• no changes made

Programme level changes

• no changes made

Periodic review

This specialty curriculum requires significant change beyond the scope of an annual review.

Response – no

Rationale

Please provide an overview of the rationale for why the proposed changes are needed or why changes were not needed, with reference to stakeholder feedback.

Response

Feedback has not been consistently provided due to lack of awareness of feedback mechanisms. When the call for feedback was made, this was a busy period within the field with several conferences etc which may have reduced the ability of those in the profession to respond. As such, AGIP will communicate a call for further feedback which will feed into the rolling review next year.

Current feedback reflects differing views. One expresses frustration about the deviation from the urodynamics pathway, but this is a decision that the professional body and those involved in the delivery of the educational content strongly support; even without urodynamics, it is difficult to fit all essential GI Physiology content into the relatively small teaching periods. Changing this would cause GI Physiology as a specialty to suffer. This feedback also suggests that the structure of the programme discourages hands-on training in year 1. This is a misconception which will be addressed via AGIP communication. The other suggests no changes need to be made. There is definitely room for small improvements to be made, but it would be best to await further feedback prior to implementing.

I confirm I have reviewed the Reflective Practice Guidance for ETAs and DTAs and have made any changes necessary.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: John Gallagher
Date: 9 January 2026

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

• no changes made

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 16 January 2026

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• no changes made, HCPC mapping maintained

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 16 January 2026