BACKGROUND: Comfort during colonoscopy is a critical component of safety and quality. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Nurse-Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). DESIGN: Prospective scale validation. SETTING: Colorectal cancer screening centers in the United Kingdom and Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 300 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy at participating colorectal cancer screening centers. INTERVENTION: The NAPCOMS was developed by using a modified Delphi process. During colonoscopy, two endoscopy room nurses independently observed and rated patient comfort and tolerability by using NAPCOMS. In addition, endoscopists reported global comfort scores and patients' reported global comfort by using visual 4-point Likert and National Health Service-United Kingdom Global Rating Scales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Reliability and validity of NAPCOMS was measured by using intraclass correlations (ICC) between nurse ratings of colonoscopies and between NAPCOMS, endoscopist ratings, and patient ratings of global comfort. RESULTS: The ICC for the overall NAPCOMS was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.87). There was high agreement between the NAPCOMS and endoscopist ratings of comfort (ICC = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81), moderate agreement between the NAPCOMS and patient ratings (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67), and moderate agreement between the endoscopist and patient ratings (ICC = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.60). LIMITATIONS: NAPCOMS was validated in outpatients who received colonoscopy with minimal to moderate sedation as part of a screening and surveillance program, so performance among inpatients or those requiring deep sedation was not tested. CONCLUSION: NAPCOMS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing patient comfort in the setting of outpatient colonoscopy performed with minimal to moderate sedation.
BACKGROUND: Comfort during colonoscopy is a critical component of safety and quality. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Nurse-Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). DESIGN: Prospective scale validation. SETTING:Colorectal cancer screening centers in the United Kingdom and Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 300 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy at participating colorectal cancer screening centers. INTERVENTION: The NAPCOMS was developed by using a modified Delphi process. During colonoscopy, two endoscopy room nurses independently observed and rated patient comfort and tolerability by using NAPCOMS. In addition, endoscopists reported global comfort scores and patients' reported global comfort by using visual 4-point Likert and National Health Service-United Kingdom Global Rating Scales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Reliability and validity of NAPCOMS was measured by using intraclass correlations (ICC) between nurse ratings of colonoscopies and between NAPCOMS, endoscopist ratings, and patient ratings of global comfort. RESULTS: The ICC for the overall NAPCOMS was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.87). There was high agreement between the NAPCOMS and endoscopist ratings of comfort (ICC = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81), moderate agreement between the NAPCOMS and patient ratings (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67), and moderate agreement between the endoscopist and patient ratings (ICC = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.60). LIMITATIONS: NAPCOMS was validated in outpatients who received colonoscopy with minimal to moderate sedation as part of a screening and surveillance program, so performance among inpatients or those requiring deep sedation was not tested. CONCLUSION: NAPCOMS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing patient comfort in the setting of outpatient colonoscopy performed with minimal to moderate sedation.
Authors: Scott R Steele; Eric K Johnson; Bradley Champagne; Brad Davis; Sang Lee; David Rivadeneira; Howard Ross; Dana A Hayden; Justin A Maykel Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-07-21 Impact factor: 5.742
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: Volker Moritz; Michael Bretthauer; Øyvind Holme; Morten Wang Fagerland; Magnus Løberg; Tom Glomsaker; Thomas de Lange; Birgitte Seip; Per Sandvei; Geir Hoff Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Thomas R Skinner; Joseph Churton; Timothy P Edwards; Farzad Bashirzadeh; Christopher Zappala; Justin T Hundloe; Hau Tan; Andrew J Pattison; Maryann Todman; Gunter F Hartel; David I Fielding Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2021-05-31
Authors: Rishad Khan; Joanne Plahouras; Bradley C Johnston; Michael A Scaffidi; Samir C Grover; Catharine M Walsh Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-17
Authors: Laura J Neilson; Joanne Patterson; Christian von Wagner; Paul Hewitson; Lesley M McGregor; Linda Sharp; Colin J Rees Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2020-01-13
Authors: Nauzer Forbes; Millie Chau; Hannah F Koury; B Cord Lethebe; Zachary L Smith; Sachin Wani; Rajesh N Keswani; B Joseph Elmunzer; John T Anderson; Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 9.427