Literature DB >> 22389231

Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale.

J Sint Nicolaas1, V de Jonge, I J Korfage, F Ter Borg, J T Brouwer, D L Cahen, W Lesterhuis, R J Th Ouwendijk, E J Kuipers, M E van Leerdam.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Global Rating Scale (GRS) is a quality assurance program that was developed in England to assess patient-centered care in endoscopy. The aim of the current study was to evaluate patient experiences of colonoscopy using the GRS in order to compare different departments and to provide benchmarks. The study also evaluated factors associated with patient satisfaction.
METHODS: A GRS questionnaire was used both before and after the procedure in outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. The questionnaire assessed the processes associated with the colonoscopy, from making the appointment up until discharge. Mean values and ranges of 12 endoscopy departments were calculated together with P values in order to assess heterogeneity.
RESULTS: In total, 1904 pre-procedure and 1532 (80 %) post-procedure questionnaires were returned from 12 endoscopy departments. The mean time patients had to wait for their procedure was 4.3 weeks (range 3.1 - 5.8 weeks), and 54 % (range 35 - 64 %; P < 0.001) reported being given a choice of appointment dates/times. Discomfort during colonoscopy was reported by 20 % (range 8 - 40 %; P < 0.001). Recovery room privacy was satisfactory for 76 % of patients (range 66 - 90 %; P < 0.05). The majority of patients reported being sufficiently informed about what to do in case of problems after discharge (79 %, range 43 - 98 %; P < 0.001), and 85 % of individuals stated that they would be willing to repeat the colonoscopy procedure (range 72 - 92 %; P < 0.001). Factors associated with a decreased willingness to return were the burdensome bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25; P < 0.001), "rushing staff" attitude (OR = 0.57; P < 0.05), low acceptance of the procedure (OR = 0.42; P < 0.01), and more discomfort than expected (OR = 0.54; P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Overall patient experiences with colonoscopy were satisfactory, but they also showed considerable variation. This study shows that use of a GRS patient questionnaire is feasible in the Dutch endoscopy setting for the assessment of patient experience. The significant variability between endoscopy units can be used to benchmark services and enable shortcomings to be identified. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22389231     DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291663

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  12 in total

1.  Meditations on bowel preps.

Authors:  Jonathan Belsey
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

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

3.  Efficiency and patient experience with propofol vs conventional sedation: A prospective study.

Authors:  Patrick Thornley; Mohammad Al Beshir; James Gregor; Andreas Antoniou; Nitin Khanna
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-02-25

4.  When and why a colonoscopist should discontinue colonoscopy by himself?

Authors:  Tao Gan; Jin-Lin Yang; Jun-Chao Wu; Yi-Ping Wang; Li Yang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Performance measures for endoscopy services: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Roland Valori; George Cortas; Thomas de Lange; Omer Salem Balfaqih; Marjon de Pater; Pierre Eisendrath; Premysl Falt; Irfan Koruk; Akiko Ono; Nadan Rustemović; Erik Schoon; Andrew Veitch; Carlo Senore; Cristina Bellisario; Silvia Minozzi; Cathy Bennett; Michael Bretthauer; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Dirk Domagk; Cesare Hassan; Michal F Kaminski; Colin J Rees; Cristiano Spada; Raf Bisschops; Mathew Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-11-04       Impact factor: 4.623

6.  Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services.

Authors:  Stéphanie Carpentier; Nour Sharara; Alan N Barkun; Sara El Ouali; Myriam Martel; Maida J Sewitch
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-10-20

7.  Validation of a Patient Satisfaction Scale in Patients Undergoing Bowel Preparation Prior to Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Hind T Hatoum; Swu-Jane Lin; Raymond E Joseph; David N Dahdal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Interobserver variability in comfort scores for screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  David N Naumann; Sarah Potter-Concannon; Sharad Karandikar
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03-22

9.  Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopy units.

Authors:  Lukejohn W Day; Jonathan Cohen; David Greenwald; Bret T Petersen; Nancy S Schlossberg; Joseph J Vicari; Audrey H Calderwood; Frank J Chapman; Lawrence B Cohen; Glenn Eisen; Patrick D Gerstenberger; Ralph David Hambrick; John M Inadomi; Donald MacIntosh; Justin L Sewell; Roland Valori
Journal:  VideoGIE       Date:  2017-05-26

10.  Patient participation in gastrointestinal endoscopy - From patients' perspectives.

Authors:  Hanna Dubois; Johan Creutzfeldt; Monita Törnqvist; Mia Bergenmar
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.