A Bassi1, E Brown, N Kapoor, K Bodger. 1. Aintree Centre for Gastroenterology, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK. ash.bassi@aht.nwest.nhs.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patients' perspectives on the amount of information they receive prior to diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopies. Our unit's policy for obtaining consent consists of initially posting an information leaflet to the patient followed by subsequent explanation of the procedure on arrival for the test. The consent form is signed by the patient immediately prior to the test. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted to assess patient perception and satisfaction with the amount of information received before diagnostic endoscopy. RESULTS: The information was obtained from 127 of the 175 questionnaires that were distributed. Whereas 97% had read the information leaflet, only 52% had read the consent form before signing it. 64/127(51%) felt dissatisfied because they would have wanted more information while 3% were dissatisfied because they would have liked less information relating to one or more aspects of the test. Dissatisfaction was higher in patients who had not read the consent form (p < 0.001) and those with some formal education (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who did not read the consent form were more dissatisfied. Strategies to improve the rate of reading this document may increase patient satisfaction. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patients' perspectives on the amount of information they receive prior to diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopies. Our unit's policy for obtaining consent consists of initially posting an information leaflet to the patient followed by subsequent explanation of the procedure on arrival for the test. The consent form is signed by the patient immediately prior to the test. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted to assess patient perception and satisfaction with the amount of information received before diagnostic endoscopy. RESULTS: The information was obtained from 127 of the 175 questionnaires that were distributed. Whereas 97% had read the information leaflet, only 52% had read the consent form before signing it. 64/127(51%) felt dissatisfied because they would have wanted more information while 3% were dissatisfied because they would have liked less information relating to one or more aspects of the test. Dissatisfaction was higher in patients who had not read the consent form (p < 0.001) and those with some formal education (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Patients who did not read the consent form were more dissatisfied. Strategies to improve the rate of reading this document may increase patient satisfaction. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: Vincent de Jonge; Jerome Sint Nicolaas; Eoin A Lalor; Clarence K Wong; Brennan Walters; Anand Bala; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam; Sander Jo Veldhuyzen van Zanten Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: David I Fudman; Konstantinos Papamichael; Lilach Roemi; Varun Rao; Kenneth R Falchuk; Daniel A Leffler; Joseph D Feuerstein Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Ji Hyun Song; Hwan Sik Yoon; Byung Hoon Min; Jun Haeng Lee; Young Ho Kim; Dong Kyung Chang; Hee Jung Son; Poong Lyul Rhee; Jong Chul Rhee; Jae J Kim Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 3.165
Authors: Sabina Beg; Krish Ragunath; Andrew Wyman; Matthew Banks; Nigel Trudgill; D Mark Pritchard; Stuart Riley; John Anderson; Helen Griffiths; Pradeep Bhandari; Phillip Kaye; Andrew Veitch Journal: Gut Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 23.059