BACKGROUND: Fatigue is an underestimated cause of underperformance among physicians. There is evidence that fatigue or other byproducts of production pressure may negatively influence the quality of colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the practices and perceptions of U.S. endoscopists regarding the effect of production pressure on the performance of colonoscopy. DESIGN: We conducted a 40-question online survey to assess endoscopists' practices and perceptions concerning production pressure. SETTING: A total of 5030 U.S. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of endoscopists responding positively to questions pertaining to the impact of production pressure on colonoscopy practice. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that production pressure influenced one or more aspects of their endoscopic practices. Examples of production pressure included (1) postponing polypectomy for a subsequent session (2.8%), (2) reducing the length of time spent inspecting the colon (7.2%), and (3) proceeding with colonoscopy in a patient with an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio (69.2%). Forty-eight percent of respondents reported witnessing the effects of production pressure on a colleague. Respondents working fee-for-service and those with >10 years since completion of fellowship were more likely to describe their weekly workloads as excessive compared with those who were salaried (81.3% vs 71.3%; P = .01) and <10 years out of training (81% vs 72.7%; P = .01). LIMITATIONS: Nonresponse bias due to low response rate (22.3%). CONCLUSION: Production pressure influences the conduct of colonoscopy for many endoscopists and could have an adverse effect on the outcome of colorectal cancer screening. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RE:GIE D 11-01288R1.) The study was an Internet study and did not involve human subjects.
BACKGROUND:Fatigue is an underestimated cause of underperformance among physicians. There is evidence that fatigue or other byproducts of production pressure may negatively influence the quality of colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the practices and perceptions of U.S. endoscopists regarding the effect of production pressure on the performance of colonoscopy. DESIGN: We conducted a 40-question online survey to assess endoscopists' practices and perceptions concerning production pressure. SETTING: A total of 5030 U.S. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of endoscopists responding positively to questions pertaining to the impact of production pressure on colonoscopy practice. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that production pressure influenced one or more aspects of their endoscopic practices. Examples of production pressure included (1) postponing polypectomy for a subsequent session (2.8%), (2) reducing the length of time spent inspecting the colon (7.2%), and (3) proceeding with colonoscopy in a patient with an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio (69.2%). Forty-eight percent of respondents reported witnessing the effects of production pressure on a colleague. Respondents working fee-for-service and those with >10 years since completion of fellowship were more likely to describe their weekly workloads as excessive compared with those who were salaried (81.3% vs 71.3%; P = .01) and <10 years out of training (81% vs 72.7%; P = .01). LIMITATIONS: Nonresponse bias due to low response rate (22.3%). CONCLUSION: Production pressure influences the conduct of colonoscopy for many endoscopists and could have an adverse effect on the outcome of colorectal cancer screening. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RE:GIE D 11-01288R1.) The study was an Internet study and did not involve human subjects.
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Fw Leung; R Cheung; Rs Fan; Ls Fischer; S Friedland; Sb Ho; Yh Hsieh; I Hung; Mk Li; S Matsui; Kr McQuaid; G Ohning; A Ojuri; T Sato; Ak Shergill; Ma Shoham; Tc Simons; Mh Walter; A Yen Journal: J Interv Gastroenterol Date: 2012-07-01
Authors: Gottumukkala Raju; Phillip Lum; William Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Ethan Miller; Patrick Lynch; Jeffrey Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Brian Weston; Boris Blechacz; George J Chang; Katherine Hagan; Asif Rashid; Marta Davila; John Stroehlein Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2019-02-28