Informed consent in direct access colonoscopy

Patient Decisions Regarding Rescheduling Colonoscopies Postponed Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, elective colonoscopies were postponed in Ohio from 3/17/2020 to 5/1/2020. When the ban was lifted, canceled patients determined whether to reschedule their colonoscopy in the midst of the ongoing pandemic.

AIMS

We aim to determine whether demographic, colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and COVID-19 morbidity and mortality risk factors are associated with rescheduling of colonoscopies canceled by the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A medical record review of 420 participants ages 40-74 at a midwestern academic health system with elective colonoscopies canceled from 3/17/2020 to 5/1/2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic was performed.

RESULTS

More than half of participants (71.0%) rescheduled their colonoscopy within the next 8 months. Indication for colonoscopy being 'surveillance following adenoma', colonoscopy ordered by primary care provider rather than gastroenterologist, and dyslipidemia were independently associated with rescheduling colonoscopy. Higher body mass index, indication for colonoscopy being simply 'screening for CRC,' and stool testing were associated with not rescheduling. Diagnoses associated with colorectal cancer risk such as adenomas, personal or family history of colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease were not associated with rescheduling, nor were other comorbidities associated with increased COVID-19 severity. 4.5% (19/420) opted for stool fecal immunochemical test or Cologuard testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients rescheduled their colonoscopy despite the risk of virus exposure, suggesting that concern of missed colorectal cancer diagnosis outweighed coronavirus concerns. Patient trust in referring providers may be important for rescheduling, and colonoscopy indications were independently associated with rescheduling status.

The evolution of informed consent in gastroenterology

With medical litigation on the rise, physicians require a nuanced understanding of the legalities of consenting patients to reduce their liability while practising evidence-based medicine. This study aims to a) clarify the legal duties of gastroenterologists in the UK and USA when gaining informed consent and b) provide recommendations at the international and physician level to improve the consent process and reduce liability.A bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science database with the MeSH terms "gastroenterology" and "informed consent" yielded 383 articles, of which 228 were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the top 50 articles, 48% were from American institutions and 16% were from the UK. Thematic analysis showed 72% of the articles discussed informed consent in relation to diagnostic procedures, 14% regarding treatment, and 14% regarding research participation.Both the USA and the UK have progressed from previously paternalistic Natanson case (1960) and Bolam test (1957), respectively, where physicians were held to the standard of a "reasonable and prudent medical doctor". The American Canterbury case (1972) and the British Montgomery case (2015) radically shifted the standard of disclosure during the consent process by requiring physicians to explain all information pertinent to a "reasonable patient".It is our recommendation that a two-pronged approach be taken; a) creation of international guidelines for consenting patients for invasive procedures in gastroenterology, and b) development of internationally standardised endoscopy consent forms containing all the details pertinent to a "reasonable patient".

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1:  Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2:  The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3:  For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4:  Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5:  There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6:  The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7:  The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8:  Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9:  If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopic Procedures: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric gastrointestinal procedures are performed when clinically indicated and defined by their successful performance by skilled providers in a safe, comfortable, child-oriented, and expeditious manner. The process of pediatric endoscopy begins when a plan to perform the procedure is first made and ends when all appropriate patient follow-up has occurred. Procedure-related standards and indicators developed to date for endoscopy in adults emphasize cancer screening and are thus unsuitable for pediatric medicine.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopic procedures. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 14 standards for pediatric endoscopic procedures, as well as 30 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality procedures. These were subcategorized into three subdomains: Preprocedural (3 standards, 7 indicators), Intraprocedural (8 standards, 18 indicators), and Postprocedural (3 standards, 5 indicators). A minimum target for the key indicator, "rate of adequate bowel preparation," was set at ≥80%.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all facilities and individual providers performing pediatric endoscopy worldwide initiate and engage with the procedure-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN to identify gaps in quality and drive improvement.

Improving quality of care in endoscopy of inflammatory bowel disease: can we do better?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopy plays a key role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There is an increased need for quality assurance programs that evaluate the quality, safety and patient experiences of endoscopy, by assessing procedural and clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to summarize the most important quality indicators of endoscopy in IBD patients and could serve as the basis to improve quality endoscopic procedures and patients' perception of endoscopy in the future. However, further studies and consensus reports are necessary to standardize the quality of care in the endoscopy unit of all IBD centers.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Developing an understanding of the patient-reported perception is important for both clinicians and patients, as it facilitates patient engagement with their care. Moreover, implementing education in reporting is crucial f and the use of verifiable databases, generated from electronic reporting systems, should be encouraged rather than unverified self-reporting, to have greater validity for documenting and to formally evaluate endoscopic practice data with audits. The use of artificial intelligence may improve the quality of endoscopy, by increasing the adenoma detection rate and helping endoscopists in the challenging differentiation between inflammatory and neoplastic lesions.

The Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic: Improving time to colonoscopy for eligible positive faecal occult blood test patients in Broken Hill NSW

OBJECTIVE

This pilot project aimed to assess whether the Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic is an effective and safe model to reduce the time from a positive faecal occult blood test referral to a gastroenterologist-performed colonoscopy, and its effect on meeting the 120-day recommendation.

DESIGN

Before/after clinical practice and patient file audit.

SETTING

Broken Hill Health Service.

PARTICIPANTS

De-identified data from all positive faecal occult blood test colonoscopies performed in the Broken Hill Health Service in October 2016-January 2017 (Pre-Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic) and October 2017-January 2018 (Post-Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Variables included referral date, indication, initial appointment date, colonoscopy date, colonoscopy finding, bowel preparation and adverse events. Colonoscopies indicated by positive faecal occult blood test results were the focus.

RESULTS

The nurse-consulted Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic cohort (n = 22) had a significant 139-day reduction from positive faecal occult blood test referral to colonoscopy compared to the Pre-Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic cohort. All Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic patients met the new 120-day recommendation for wait-time from referral to colonoscopy. Following the introduction of the Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic, no immediate adverse events were documented for patients using either the conventional or Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic pathways.

CONCLUSIONS

The Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic offers a safe and effective intervention that reduces wait-time to colonoscopy in eligible patients with positive faecal occult blood test within the recommended 120 days. Further research is recommended, but Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic has the potential to improve timely access to colonoscopy services and outcomes for all positive faecal occult blood test patients.

"It is just another test they want to do": Patient and caregiver understanding of the colonoscopy procedure

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is a complex procedure that requires bowel preparation, sedation, and has the potential for substantial risk. Given this, we investigated colonoscopy patients' perceived and actual understanding of the procedure.

METHODS

Consecutive colonoscopy patients were enrolled and surveyed, with their caregivers, immediately prior to their procedure. Demographics, health literacy, socioeconomic status and perceived risks/benefits were assessed. Thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses and a 3-level outcome variable was created to categorize correctness of patients' and caregivers' understanding. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine predictors of response level.

RESULTS

Patients (N=1821) were 77% White, 60% female, and averaged 54 years old; caregivers were demographically similar. Among patients, bivariate analysis revealed that younger age, minority race, and low income, education, and health literacy were associated with incomplete understanding. Multinomial regression revealed that age, education, health literacy, first-time colonoscopy, and perceived risk-benefit difference discriminated among groups. Bivariate and multinomial results for caregivers were similar.

CONCLUSION

Patients and caregivers varied on information, understanding and misconceptions about colonoscopy. Implications are discussed for inadequate: 1. informed consent, 2. bowel preparation, and 3. emotional preparation for cancer detection or adverse events.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Attention should be paid to patients' understanding of the purpose, anatomy, and logistics of colonoscopy, preferably prior to bowel preparation.

Informed consent in colonoscopy: A comparative analysis of 2 methods

BACKGROUND

The manner in which informed consent is obtained varies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the level of knowledge about colonoscopy and comparing 2 methods of obtaining informed consent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comparative, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted on patients that underwent colonoscopy in a public hospital (Group A) and in a private hospital (Group B). Group A received information verbally from a physician, as well as in the form of printed material, and Group B only received printed material. A telephone survey was carried out one or 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 176 subjects (group A [n=55] and group B [n=121]). As regards education level, 69.88% (n=123) of the patients had completed university education, 23.29% (n= 41) secondary level, 5.68% (n=10) primary level, and the remaining subjects (n=2) had not completed any level of education. All (100%) of the subjects knew the characteristics of the procedure, and 99.43% were aware of its benefits. A total of 97.7% received information about complications, 93.7% named some of them, and 25% (n=44) remembered major complications. All the subjects received, read, and signed the informed consent statement before the study. There were no differences between the groups with respect to knowledge of the characteristics and benefits of the procedure, or the receipt and reading of the consent form. Group B responded better in relation to complications (P=.0027) and group A had a better recollection of the major complications (P<.0001). Group A had a higher number of affirmative answers (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of verbal and written information provides the patient with a more comprehensive level of knowledge about the procedure.

Satisfaction in open access versus traditional referral for upper endoscopy in children

OBJECTIVES

In traditional access endoscopy (TAE), patients are booked for endoscopy following a gastroenterology clinic assessment. In contrast, open access endoscopy (OAE) patients are seen for the first time on the day of the procedure, providing same day procedural consent. Controversy exists over the use of OAE in adults, both with the consent process and with patient satisfaction. No literature exists describing satisfaction with OAE in pediatrics. We therefore aimed to assess pediatric patient and caregiver satisfaction in OAE compared with TAE.

METHODS

Consecutive pediatric patients, and their caregivers, undergoing elective upper endoscopy from May to December 2012 at the Stollery Children's Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) were consented for a cross-sectional survey. Seven preprocedure and 5 postprocedure questions were completed regarding mood and satisfaction with the wait time and the information provided. Group demographics and endoscopy wait times were collected.

RESULTS

Median wait time with OAE was less compared with TAE (57 days vs 196 days, P < 0.001). OAE patients reported worse mood preprocedure than TAE patients (35.3% vs 10.7%, P = 0.046). OAE caregivers and patients reported more mood disturbance if required to wait longer for endoscopy by attending clinic preprocedure (OAE caregivers 62.2%, OAE patients 64.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

OAE is associated with worse preendoscopy patient mood; however, children and caregivers seem concerned about longer wait times associated with TAE. Given the significantly shorter wait times in OAE, identifying methods to minimize present limitations of OAE will be useful to improve clinical practices in pediatric gastroenterology.

Research methodologies in informed consent studies involving surgical and invasive procedures: time to re-examine?

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a review of informed consent studies involving surgical and invasive procedures and report the degree to which current research targets a broader scope of patient outcomes beyond comprehension.

METHODS

Using PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Excerpta Medical Database, we identified 97 articles for review. Six members coded articles and generated scores of study design quality.

RESULTS

The mean quality score (10.7 out of a total score of 20) was low. Most studies were single institution-based, relying on one-time data collections. Randomly assigning subjects to study conditions, using power analysis to determine subject numbers, and reporting psychometric evidence, such as reliability and validity, were not widely reported. Most frequently targeted patient outcomes were knowledge, understanding and satisfaction. Core informed consent outcomes (e.g. capacity, voluntariness, decision making) and emotional factors (e.g. anxiety) were not extensively addressed.

CONCLUSION

Informed consent research may benefit from applying qualitative methods to more directly tap into patients' beliefs and decisions by eliciting in patients' own words their emotions and reasoning around processing informed consent content.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research that addresses patient perspectives toward surgical interventions should tap into underexplored ethical and emotional factors that shape decision making.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.

DISCUSSION

The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Clinical outcomes associated with attempts to educate patients about lower endoscopy: a narrative review

Patient knowledge about lower endoscopy might have beneficial effects on satisfaction outcomes, pre-procedure anxiety, and adherence, although this is poorly understood. Methods Searching the national and international literature, we reviewed 20 years of observational studies and randomized trials that examine possible relationships between educating patients about lower endoscopy and clinical outcomes. Twenty-three publications were included but their heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Standard and modified informed consent procedures and enhanced educational interventions were associated most often with levels of patient knowledge, satisfaction, anxiety, and adherence. Regardless of the approach, a large proportion of patients have poor comprehension of lower endoscopy's risks, benefits, and alternatives; patient satisfaction with information and procedures manifests ceiling effects; only a subset of patients have clinically significant pre-procedure anxiety; and providing written information and reminders may improve procedure adherence. Future work should focus on strategies for improving patient knowledge in the setting of initial screening colonoscopy within open access systems. Patient knowledge of lower endoscopy is often inadequate even though greater knowledge might be associated with better clinical outcomes for certain patient subgroups. Professional societies have an important role to play in endorsing educational strategies and in clarifying and assessing the adequacy of patient knowledge.