BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the best mechanism and timing for assessing patient satisfaction with endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors related to patient satisfaction with endoscopy and to determine if satisfaction after the procedure correlates with measurements at a later date. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing EGD, colonoscopy, or both. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received preprocedure and postprocedure questionnaires on the procedure day. A third questionnaire (telephone or mail) was administered at least 1 week later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Satisfaction scores. RESULTS: A total of 261 patients were studied (53% men). The mean age was 55 +/- 14 years. A total of 226 patients (86.6%) were very satisfied with their endoscopy. Factors positively associated with satisfaction were as follow: doctor's personal manner (odds ratio [OR] 3.00 [95% CI, 1.80-5.03]), doctor's technical skills (OR 2.65 [95% CI, 1.55-4.51]), nurse's personal manner (OR 2.84 [95% CI, 1.74-4.63]), physical environment (OR 1.75 [95% CI, 1.16-2.64]), and more time with doctor discussing the procedure (OR 1.66 [95% CI, 1.02-2.69]). Higher levels of pain or discomfort were associated with less satisfaction (OR 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36-0.90]). A total of 141 of 261 patients (54%) were reached for follow-up (mean [SD] 39 +/- 26 days). These patients were less satisfied (rating dropped mean 0.35 points, P = .03) than those questioned sooner after the procedure and recalled experiencing more pain (rating increased mean 0.44 points, P = 0.01). LIMITATION: Single center. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several factors that impacted patient satisfaction. Most patients initially appeared very satisfied, perhaps because of residual sedation and the distinct setting of the surveys. However, patient satisfaction tended to decrease over time, possibly because of recall bias. Future studies with patient satisfaction may require assessment at a date further removed from their endoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the best mechanism and timing for assessing patient satisfaction with endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors related to patient satisfaction with endoscopy and to determine if satisfaction after the procedure correlates with measurements at a later date. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing EGD, colonoscopy, or both. INTERVENTIONS:Patients received preprocedure and postprocedure questionnaires on the procedure day. A third questionnaire (telephone or mail) was administered at least 1 week later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Satisfaction scores. RESULTS: A total of 261 patients were studied (53% men). The mean age was 55 +/- 14 years. A total of 226 patients (86.6%) were very satisfied with their endoscopy. Factors positively associated with satisfaction were as follow: doctor's personal manner (odds ratio [OR] 3.00 [95% CI, 1.80-5.03]), doctor's technical skills (OR 2.65 [95% CI, 1.55-4.51]), nurse's personal manner (OR 2.84 [95% CI, 1.74-4.63]), physical environment (OR 1.75 [95% CI, 1.16-2.64]), and more time with doctor discussing the procedure (OR 1.66 [95% CI, 1.02-2.69]). Higher levels of pain or discomfort were associated with less satisfaction (OR 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36-0.90]). A total of 141 of 261 patients (54%) were reached for follow-up (mean [SD] 39 +/- 26 days). These patients were less satisfied (rating dropped mean 0.35 points, P = .03) than those questioned sooner after the procedure and recalled experiencing more pain (rating increased mean 0.44 points, P = 0.01). LIMITATION: Single center. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several factors that impacted patient satisfaction. Most patients initially appeared very satisfied, perhaps because of residual sedation and the distinct setting of the surveys. However, patient satisfaction tended to decrease over time, possibly because of recall bias. Future studies with patient satisfaction may require assessment at a date further removed from their endoscopy.
Authors: David Armstrong; Alan Barkun; Ron Bridges; Rose Carter; Chris de Gara; Catherine Dube; Robert Enns; Roger Hollingworth; Donald Macintosh; Mark Borgaonkar; Sylviane Forget; Grigorios Leontiadis; Jonathan Meddings; Peter Cotton; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.522
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: Mayur Brahmania; Madison Young; Chetty Muthiah; Alexandra Ilnyckyj; Donald Duerksen; Dana C Moffatt Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-05-21
Authors: Hoo-Yeon Lee; Sun Mi Lim; Mi Ah Han; Jae Kwan Jun; Kui Son Choi; Myung-Il Hahm; Eun-Cheol Park Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Greg Rosenfeld; Yi Tzu Nancy Fu; Brendan Quiney; Hong Qian; Darin Krygier; Jacquie Brown; Patrick Vos; Pari Tiwari; Jennifer Telford; Brian Bressler; Robert Enns Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Russell Loftus; Zoann Nugent; Lesley A Graff; Frederick Schumacher; Charles N Bernstein; Harminder Singh Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2013 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Sook Hee Chung; Soo Jung Park; Jong Suk Hong; Jee Young Hwang; Sin Ae Lee; Kyung Ran Kim; Hye Sun Lee; Sung Pil Hong; Jae Hee Cheon; Tae Il Kim; Won Ho Kim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-07-14 Impact factor: 5.742