Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature

Development and content validity testing of a colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measure: the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS)

BACKGROUND

In endoscopic care, favourable patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy are essential for the patient's willingness to repeat the procedure. To ensure that significant experiences are measured, patients should be involved in creating the measurement instruments. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a colonoscopy-specific PREM by (1) operationalising patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure and (2) evaluating its content validity.

METHODS

The colonoscopy-specific PREM was developed in two stages: (1) operationalisation with item generation and (2) content validity testing. A previously developed conceptual model, based on a systematic literature review that illustrates patients' (n = 245) experiences of undergoing a colonoscopy, formed the theoretical basis. To assess the degree to which the PREM reflected patients' experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure, content validity was tested-through face validity with healthcare professionals (n = 4) and cognitive interviews with patients (n = 14) having experienced a colonoscopy. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated to investigate the relevance of the items.

RESULTS

The Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS) is a colonoscopy-specific PREM consisting of five different constructs: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship and understanding. Each construct was defined and generated into a pool of items (n = 77). After face-validity assessment with healthcare professionals, a draft 52-item version of the PECS was ready for content validity testing by the patients. During cognitive interviews the patients contributed valuable insights that led to rewording and removal of items. Results from the CVI suggest that the PECS and its content are relevant (I-CVI range 0.5-1, S-CVI/Ave = 0.86). The final PECS consists of 30 items representing a colonoscopy-specific PREM.

CONCLUSION

The PECS is a new 30-item PREM instrument designed for adult elective colonoscopy patients after they have undergone the procedure. Each item in the PECS derives from a conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Patients and healthcare professionals were involved in developing the PECS, which measures colonoscopy-specific patient experiences before, during and after the procedure. The content validity testing positively contributed to the development of the PECS. Psychometric properties need to be evaluated further.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies

INTRODUCTION

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers.

METHODS

Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information.

CONCLUSION

The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

The quality and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy varies considerably across regions and facilities worldwide. In this field, quality management has traditionally focused on individual performance of endoscopists, with most indicators addressing process measures and limited evidence of improvement in health outcomes. Indicators of quality can be classified according to their nature and sequence. The various professional societies and organizations have proposed many systems of indicators, but a universal system is necessary so that healthcare professionals are not overburdened and confused with a variety of quality improvement approaches. In this paper, we propose guidelines by the Saudi Gastroenterology Association pertaining to quality in endoscopic procedures aiming to improve the awareness of endoscopy unit staff toward important quality indications to enhance and standardize quality of care provided to our patients.

Comparison of patient tolerance and acceptability of magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy and flexible endoscopy in the investigation of dyspepsia

Background and study aims  Oropharyngeal intubation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is uncomfortable, associated with aerosol generation and transmission of airborne microbes. Less-invasive alternatives may be better tolerated. In this study, patient tolerance and acceptability of EGD and transnasal endoscopy (TNE) have been compared with magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy (MACE). Patients and methods  A comparison of MACE with EGD and TNE in the investigation of dyspepsia was performed. Factors affecting patient tolerance and acceptability were examined using the Endoscopy Concerns Scale (ECS) and Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). Results  Patients were significantly more distressed (scoring least to most distress: 1-10) by gagging (6 vs 1), choking (5 vs 1), bloating (2 vs 1), instrumentation (4 vs 1), discomfort during (5 vs 1) and after (2 vs 1) EGD compared to MACE (all P  < 0.0001). Patients were more distressed by instrumentation (5 vs 1) and discomfort during (5 vs 1) TNE compared to MACE ( P  = 0.001). Patients were more accepting of MACE than EGD and TNE with a UPC-Q score (scoring least to most acceptable: 0-100) lower for EGD (50 vs 98, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (75 vs 88, P  = 0.007) than MACE, and a post-procedure ECS score (scoring most to least acceptable: 10-100) higher for EGD (34 vs 11, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (25 vs 10.5, P  = 0.001) than MACE. MACE would be preferred by 83 % and 64 % of patients even if EGD or TNE respectively was subsequently recommended to obtain biopsies in half of examinations. Conclusions  Gagging and choking during instrumentation, the main causes of patient distress during EGD, occurred less during TNE but tolerance, acceptability and patient experience favored MACE.

Patient Reported Experience Measure in Endoscopic Ultrasonography: The PREUS Study Protocol

The evaluation of the patient’s experience is becoming increasingly important as a better patient experience can improve the quality of the health service delivered. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are self-report assessment tools provided to patients about their experience during any health event. There are few PREM instruments in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy, and none is specific for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This study aims to develop a questionnaire to evaluate the experience of patients undergoing EUS, identifying and prioritizing the factors related to the patient’s experience. The study will consist of several phases: (A) tool creation; (B) face and content validity; (C) ranking: to evaluate the relevance of the identified questions in the previous phase; (D) questionnaire creation and validity testing. The final output will be the production of a specific tool that can be used to measure patients’ experience during EUS. This questionnaire may become a relevant part of actions taken to measure the quality of care provided to patients undergoing EUS. Furthermore, correlation between health care providers’ and patients’ views of the relevance of the included items will allow optimization of empathetic and psychological aspects.

Patient-Reported Experience Measures for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography

Patient experience is defined as a major quality indicator that should be routinely measured during and after a colonoscopy, according to current ESGE guidelines. There is no standard approach measuring patient experience after the procedure and the comparative performance of the different colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is unclear. Therefore, the aim was to develop a conceptual model describing how patients experience a colonoscopy, and to compare the model against colonoscopy-specific PREMs. A systematic search for qualitative research published up to December 2021 in PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was conducted. After screening and quality assessment, data from 13 studies were synthesised using meta-ethnography. Similarities and differences between the model and colonoscopy-specific PREMs were identified. A model consisting of five concepts describes how patients experience undergoing a colonoscopy: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship, and understanding. These concepts were compared with existing PREMs and the result shows that there is agreement between the model and existing PREMs for colonoscopy in some parts, while partial agreement or no agreement is present in others. These findings suggest that new PREMs for colonoscopy should be developed, since none of the existing colonoscopy-specific PREMs fully cover patients’ experiences.

The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Measuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures.

DESIGN

Phase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement.

RESULTS

Phase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages.

CONCLUSION

This manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients' experiences of different endoscopic interventions.

Development and validation of a patient-reported scale for tolerability of endoscopic procedures using conscious sedation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing the tolerability of endoscopic procedures are scarce. In this study, we designed and validated a PREM to assess tolerability of endoscopy using conscious sedation.

METHODS

The patient-reported scale for tolerability of endoscopic procedures (PRO-STEP) consists of questions within 2 domains and is administered to outpatients at discharge from the endoscopy unit. Domain 1 (intraprocedural) consists of 2 questions regarding discomfort/pain and awareness, whereas domain 2 (postprocedural) consists of 4 questions on pain, nausea, distention, and either throat or anal pain. All questions are scored on a Likert scale from 0 to 10. Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency of the questions. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of higher scores, reported using adjusted odds ratios and confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients (91 colonoscopy, 73 gastroscopy, and 91 ERCP) were included. Colonoscopy was the least tolerable procedure by recall, with mean intraprocedural awareness and discomfort scores of 5.1 ± 3.8, and 2.6 ± 2.7, respectively. Consistency between intraprocedural awareness and discomfort/pain yielded an acceptable Cronbach's alpha of .71 (95% confidence interval, .62-.78). Higher use of midazolam during colonoscopy was inversely associated with an intraprocedural awareness score of 7 or higher (per additional mg: adjusted odds ratio, .23; 95% confidence interval, .09-.54).

CONCLUSIONS

PRO-STEP is a simple PREM that can be administered after multiple endoscopic procedures using conscious sedation. Future work should focus on its performance characteristics in adverse event prediction.

Patient-reported experience measure in pancreatobiliary endoscopy: a systematic review to highlight areas for improvement

OBJECTIVE

Increasing attention is paid to measure patient's experience using specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) as tool to assess the overall quality of care provided. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the United European Gastroenterology have recognized the measure of quality of endoscopy facilities as a priority to provide an adequate service. However, although some studies included patient satisfaction measurement, specific PREMs for gastrointestinal endoscopy are limited, especially in the field of pancreatobiliary endoscopy, with heterogeneous methods and results. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the literature to summarize the available PREMs for pancreatobiliary endoscopy and to highlight areas of implementation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched until February 2020.

RESULTS

The search initially retrieved 1064 articles, but only six were includable. The identified studies employed several methods to measure patient's experience, with the most frequently used questionnaires being Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire and Group Health Association of America-9. The following areas that need implementation were identified: (a) evaluation of pain is one of the most investigated areas but seems marginal, as most pancreatobiliary endoscopic procedures are performed under deep sedation; (b) endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are considered as a whole, but they have very different indication and contexts (e.g. inpatients or outpatients); (c) 'experience' and 'satisfaction' are wrongly considered as synonyms; (d) the optimal modality and timing of questionnaire administration are unclear.

CONCLUSION

There are few tools to measure PREMS in pancreatobiliary endoscopy with several limitations. We have, therefore, started the process of building a specific PREM tool for pancreatobiliary EUS.

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173906.

Quality indicators in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy contributes a major clinical service with consistently growing demand around the world. Its utility corresponds to varying epidemiological issues throughout the globe, with cancer screening and surveillance being of the utmost priority. Despite high accuracy in neoplasia detection, UGI endoscopy remains a highly operator-dependent procedure, characterized by a substantial rate of missed pathology. Despite an overall lack of high-quality performance measures, there is an increased level of awareness about the need for quality control of this procedure, which is reflected in several guidelines and position statements published in recent years. It is widely recognized that quality assessment should go beyond mere technical aspects of the examination, and include both pre- and post-procedural factors. By this means, quality control encompasses the entire patient experience with the health care provider, from appropriate indication and physical assessment, through high-quality endoscopy service, to appropriate follow up and patient satisfaction. This article aims to review the available and emerging quality metrics for UGI endoscopy, taken mostly from Western endoscopy societies, with references to Asian recommendations where appropriate. The paper is limited solely to diagnostic UGI endoscopy and does not include performance measures for therapeutic procedures.

Patient participation in gastrointestinal endoscopy - From patients' perspectives

Background

Patient participation is associated with satisfaction and improved health‐related outcomes. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient participation is an underexplored area.

Objective

To gain understanding on patients' experiences, attitudes and preferences concerning patient participation in the endoscopy pathway.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews with endoscopy patients (n = 17, female n = 8, male n = 9, ages 19‐80 years) were performed. Interview transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Participants were recruited by purposive sampling from an endoscopy unit in a Swedish university hospital. Inclusion:≥ 18 years, fluency in Swedish and recent experience of endoscopy at the unit.

Results

Five generic categories emerged, two within the area of the patient's role, which was described as active or passive/included or excluded. Another three generic categories related to factors, critical to active participation, including organizational aspects, impressions of staff and individual circumstances were identified. In this context, patient participation described in the interviews was on a low to basic level, although sometimes reaching a higher level when staff ‘invited’ patients in decision making.

Discussion

This study contributes to the understanding of patient participation in endoscopy. Patients are in an inferior position and need support from the staff for an active role in their care. Although there were variations on the perceived importance of different factors, a heavy responsibility lies on the endoscopy staff to acknowledge the patients' individual needs and to facilitate patient participation.

Conclusions

Endoscopy staff has a key role in supporting patient participation. In endoscopy settings, patient participation is vulnerable to multiple factors.

Procedural Anxiety, Pain Catastrophizing, and Procedure-Related Pain during EGD and Colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Although sedatives and analgesic drugs defuse anxiety and relieve pain, digestive endoscopy still is uncomfortable and painful for some patients. Identifying patients who tolerate digestive endoscopy less well remains difficult. The present study evaluated the relations between procedural anxiety, catastrophizing thoughts, and pain, using a prospective design and multimodal assessments of pain.

METHODS

A total of 118 consecutive patients were assessed for procedural anxiety before endoscopy. During endoscopy, a doctor rated the patients' pain behavior. Before discharge, the patients retrospectively rated endoscopy pain and related catastrophizing thoughts.

RESULTS

Notwithstanding sedation, our study revealed large between-subject variability in pain. Catastrophizing thoughts mediated the relation between procedure-related pain observed by the doctor and pain intensity reported by the patient. Catastrophizing thoughts also mediated the effect of procedural anxiety. Our study showed that anxiety exacerbates endoscopy pain when the patient engages in ruminative thinking and feels unable to cope with unpleasant bodily sensations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that catastrophizing thoughts account for between-subject differences in endoscopy pain. Rumination and helplessness but not magnification explain how procedural anxiety may evolve in a painful endoscopy experience. To the extent that one can address catastrophizing thoughts, endoscopy pain can be mitigated, especially for patients who are difficult to sedate.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Patient Experiences with Colonoscopy: A Qualitative Study

Background

Patient perspectives have important roles in improving the quality of colonoscopy services. The purpose of this qualitative study was to obtain the perspectives of patients who recently had undergone colonoscopy procedures, about their experiences with bowel preparation, the procedure itself, and communication of follow-up results and recommendations.

Methods

We recruited adults who had undergone a colonoscopy, to participate in semistructured interviews. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analyzed using inductive qualitative methods.

Results

Twenty-four adults (58% female) with an average age of 53.8 years participated. Results were categorized within the themes of bowel preparation, the colonoscopy procedure and communication of the results. Participants appreciated having clear consistent plain language messages about bowel preparation. Some participants experienced additional challenges to understanding, and navigating, colonoscopy procedures. At the time of the procedure, positive and reassuring interactions with, and between, members of the health care team, in addition to management of physical pain and discomfort, were important. Participants wanted clear and timely information about the results of their test.

Conclusions

Understanding patients' needs for information and support can promote higher quality colonoscopy services. Our findings suggest that quality indicators should include: patients' perspectives of the clarity of bowel instructions; the need for supports that are not routinely provided; the extent to which concerns about the procedure are addressed; interactions with the endoscopy team; the endoscopy team's interactions with each other; comfort during the procedure, and the timeliness and clarity of results and follow-up instructions. These indicators should be included in annual patient surveys.

Assessment of the Quality of Outpatient Endoscopic Procedures by Using a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic procedures represent an important part of daily practice, both for gastroenterologists and nurses, enabling diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. An optimal level of quality needs to be obtained for endoscopic procedures to be efficient, which is reflected directly by patient satisfaction. The Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ) has already been validated in a multicenter trial as an efficient method for measuring patient satisfaction. Aim The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction by applying a modified version of the GESQ in an outpatient facility, with or without deep sedation performed under the supervision of an anesthesiologist.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study included 552 patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic upper and lower GI endoscopies, including endoscopic ultrasound procedures (EUS) performed under propofol sedation, from September 2015 to February 2016. Consecutive patients examined during these 6 months received the questionnaire which was handed by the endoscopy nurse two hours after procedure. The GESQ was modified to include different sections for: 1) communication skills with questions regarding the quantity and clarity of the information delivered to the patient before and after the procedures; 2) pain and discomfort related to the examination with an added question about the specific procedure the patient had undergone; 3) staff manners; 4) physician's technical skills; 5) facility organization (waiting time, comfort in the recovery room, good facilities and equipment) and 6) overall satisfaction. The questionnaire did not include personal data, while answers were analyzed in a confidential manner.

RESULTS

A total number of 552 patients agreed to answer our questionnaire, 192 (34,7%) underwent gastroscopies, 288 (52,1%) colonoscopies and 72 (13,2%) EUS examinations. Regarding the overall level of satisfaction (assessed on a five-point scale), 476 (86,2%) were very satisfied or satisfied, 69 (12,5%) dissatisfied and the remainder 7 (1,3%) were indifferently. For the communication section 16 (3%) patients were not satisfied with the explanations received before the procedure or with the answers to their questions. Pain and discomfort were mentioned by 29 (5,2%) of the patients, usually related to colonoscopies or EUS examinations. 13 (2,3%) of the patients considered the comfort or intimacy of the recovery room to be poor, and 11 (2%) patients were not satisfied with the waiting time before the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Our modified questionnaire showed good overall patient satisfaction with our endoscopy unit, while also suggesting some areas in need of improvement, such as staff communication skills, better time management and reorganization of the recovery area. Our study demonstrates the importance of such questionnaires in providing feedback information meant to improve standards in endoscopy, including staff skills and organization.

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire (CSSQP) for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Development and Validation Study

Colonoscopy services working in colorectal cancer screening programs must perform periodic controls to improve the quality based on patients' experiences. However, there are no validated instruments in this setting that include the two core dimensions for optimal care: satisfaction and safety. The aim of this study was to design and validate a specific questionnaire for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test, the Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patients' experience (CSSQP). The design included a review of available evidence and used focus groups to identify the relevant dimensions to produce the instrument (content validity). Face validity was analyzed involving 15 patients. Reliability and construct and empirical validity were calculated. Validation involved patients from the colorectal cancer screening program at two referral hospitals in Spain. The CSSQP version 1 consisted of 15 items. The principal components analysis of the satisfaction items isolated three factors with saturation of elements above 0.52 and with high internal consistency and split-half readability: Information, Care, and Service and Facilities features. The analysis of the safety items isolated two factors with element saturations above 0.58: Information Gaps and Safety Incidents. The CSSQP is a new valid and reliable tool for measuring patient' experiences, including satisfaction and safety perception, after a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy.

Quality indicators and patient satisfaction in colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is the diagnostic/therapeutic confirmation test for colorectal cancer. The monitoring of the experience of people who have undergone the test is interesting to improve the quality of the colonoscopy. The aim of the project was to study factors affecting patients' experience and their relationship with the quality indicators of the Clinical Practice Guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An observational cross-sectional study was conducted, including quality and experience indicators (adapted mGHAA-9 questionnaire and clinical history) in a sample of 432 participants aged between 40- and 75-years-old who had undergone a colonoscopy in 2015. Univariate and multivariate analysis with multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Satisfaction was associated in the multivariate analysis with evaluating the waiting time for the colonoscopy as short (OR=3.80) (1.76-10.90, 95% CI),>55-years-old (OR=2.60) (1.19-5.68, 95% CI), rating the experience with the preparation positively (OR=7.34) (3.15-17.09, 95% CI), not reporting pain or discomfort during the procedure (OR=3.71) (1.03-13.40, 95% CI) (P=.006) and being examined in a tertiary hospital (OR=2.81) (1.17-6.72; 95% CI) (P=.020).

DISCUSSION

The mGHAA-9 questionnaire adapted to Spanish is useful to evaluate patient experience factors. There are aspects to improve in terms of waiting time, colon cleansing, satisfaction with preparation and post-colonoscopy problems. Interventions should be implemented to enhance patient experience and colonoscopy quality.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire is a valid tool to measure patient satisfaction in Asian country

Patient satisfaction is a key quality indicator of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). The gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire (GESQ) was recently developed to assess patient satisfaction undergoing GIE in Europe; however, it was not validated in Asian countries. We aimed to translate and validate the GESQ in Korea and identify predictors for patient satisfaction during GIE.Translation of the original GESQ was performed according to accepted linguistic validation guidelines. Between March 2016 and July 2016, 350 consecutive patients were asked to complete a GESQ after GIE at Kyung Hee University Hospital. Total sum of scores was transformed from 0 to 100 by the formula: (Score-lowest possible/Score range) × 100.Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses for construct validation reconfirmed that 4 factors were extracted from the Korean GESQ. Internal consistency reliability was acceptable with an overall Cronbach α score of 0.87. Female and nonsmoker were associated with less satisfaction with GIE (P = .021 and .006, respectively). Other factors, including age, alcohol, education or economic level, sedative endoscopy, gastroscopy with or without colonoscopy, experience of previous endoscopy, and additional examinations such as biopsy, were not associated with patient satisfaction during GIE.The Korean version of the GESQ was a valid and acceptable tool to measure satisfaction in patients who had undergone a GIE in Korea. Patient satisfaction measurement could contribute to systematic improvement of qualified GIE.

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60-74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population.

What do patients want from their endoscopy experience? The importance of measuring and understanding patient attitudes to their care

Understanding and addressing patient attitudes to their care facilitates their engagement and attendance, improves the quality of their experience and the appropriate utilisation of resources. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a commonly performed medical procedure that can be associated with patient anxiety and apprehension. Measuring patient attitudes to endoscopy can be undertaken through a number of approaches with contrasting benefits and limitations. Methodological validation is necessary for accurate interpretation of results and avoiding bias. Retrospective post-procedure questionnaires measuring satisfaction are easily undertaken but have limited value, particularly in directing service improvements. Patient experience questionnaires indicate areas of poor care but may reflect the clinician's not the patient's perspective. Directly assessing patient priorities and expectations identifies what is important to patients in their healthcare experience (patient-reported value) that can also provide a basis for other forms of evaluation. Published studies of patient attitudes to their endoscopy procedure indicate the importance of ensuring that endoscopists and their staff control patient discomfort, have adequate technical skill and effectively communicate with their patient relating to the procedure and results. Environmental factors, including noise, privacy and the single-sex environment, are considered to have less value. There are contrasting views on patient attitudes to waiting times for the procedure. Implementing patient-centred care in endoscopy requires an understanding of what patients want from their healthcare experience. The results from available studies suggest implications for current practice that relate to the training and practice of the endoscopist and their staff.