Literature DB >> 23712300

Patient satisfaction with the endoscopy experience and willingness to return in a central Canadian health region.

Russell Loftus1, Zoann Nugent, Lesley A Graff, Frederick Schumacher, Charles N Bernstein, Harminder Singh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Patient experiences with endoscopy visits within a large central Canadian health region were evaluated to determine the relationship between the visit experience and the patients' willingness to return for future endoscopy, and to identify the factors associated with patients' willingness to return.
METHODS: A self-report survey was distributed to 1200 consecutive individuals undergoing an upper and⁄or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy at any one of the six hospital-based endoscopy facilities in the region. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the association between the patients' overall rating of the visits and willingness to return for repeat procedures under similar medical circumstances. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with willingness to return for repeat endoscopy and overall satisfaction (rating) of the visit.
RESULTS: A total of 529 (44%) individuals returned the questionnaire, with 45% rating the visit as excellent and 56% indicating they were extremely likely to return for repeat endoscopy. There was a low moderate correlation between overall rating of the visit and patients' willingness to return for repeat endoscopy (r=0.30). The factors independently associated with patient willingness to return for repeat endoscopy included perceived technical skills of the endoscopists (OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.3 to 5.5]), absence of pain during the procedure (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.3 to 3.6]) and history of previous endoscopy (OR 2.4 [95% CI 1.4 to 4.1]). In contrast, the independent factors associated with the overall rating of the visit included information provided pre- and postprocedure, wait time before and on the day of the visit, and the physical environment.
CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate patient return for needed endoscopy, it is important to assess patients' willingness to return because positive behavioural intent is not simply a function of satisfaction with the visit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23712300      PMCID: PMC3735728          DOI: 10.1155/2013/615206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0835-7900            Impact factor:   3.522


  22 in total

1.  Quality and outcomes assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Guidelines for screening and surveillance of asymptomatic colorectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  J A Eaden; J F Mayberry
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 3.  Patient satisfaction: what we know about and what we still need to explore.

Authors:  L Aharony; S Strasser
Journal:  Med Care Rev       Date:  1993

4.  A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis.

Authors:  P Peduzzi; J Concato; E Kemper; T R Holford; A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Factors influencing patient satisfaction with GI endoscopy.

Authors:  R F Yacavone; G R Locke; C J Gostout; T H Rockwood; S Thieling; A R Zinsmeister
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Colonoscopy without sedation.

Authors:  Gazi Yörük; Kadir Aksöz; Belkis Unsal; Zafer Buyraç; Tahir Buran; Nafi Yazicioğlu; Cemal Yildiz; Hüseyin Cahit Yalçin
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.852

7.  The safety, feasibility, and acceptability of patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: prospective study.

Authors:  D W H Lee; A C W Chan; S K H Wong; A C N Li; T S Sze; S C S Chung
Journal:  Hong Kong Med J       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.227

8.  Patients' ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

Authors:  H R Rubin; B Gandek; W H Rogers; M Kosinski; C A McHorney; J E Ware
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Colonoscopy without sedation.

Authors:  M S Hoffman; T W Butler; T Shaver
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.062

10.  Clues to patient dissatisfaction with conscious sedation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  S M Schutz; J G Lee; C M Schmitt; M Almon; J Baillie
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  British society of gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme (EQIP): overview and progress.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Sara Koo; John Anderson; Mark McAlindon; Andrew M Veitch; Allan John Morris; Pradeep Bhandari; James E East; George Webster; Kofi W Oppong; Ian D Penman
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-01-18

2.  Patient Experiences with Colonoscopy: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Gayle Restall; Valerie Michaud; John R Walker; Celeste Waldman; Charles N Bernstein; Jason Park; Kristy Wittmeier; Harminder Singh
Journal:  J Can Assoc Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-06-17

3.  The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction.

Authors:  Hyojung Tak; Gregory W Ruhnke; Ya-Chen Tina Shih
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Does anxiety or waiting time influence patients' tolerance of upper endoscopy?

Authors:  Stefano Pontone; Maya Tonda; Manuela Brighi; Matteo Florio; Daniele Pironi; Paolo Pontone
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.485

Review 5.  Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Roisin Bevan; Katharina Zimmermann-Fraedrich; Matthew D Rutter; Douglas Rex; Evelien Dekker; Thierry Ponchon; Michael Bretthauer; Jaroslaw Regula; Brian Saunders; Cesare Hassan; Michael J Bourke; Thomas Rösch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  How to improve patient satisfaction during midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy?

Authors:  Eun Hyo Jin; Kyoung Sup Hong; Young Lee; Ji Yeon Seo; Ji Min Choi; Jaeyoung Chun; Sang Gyun Kim; Joo Sung Kim; Hyun Chae Jung
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Quality indicators in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Wladyslaw Januszewicz; Michal F Kaminski
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 4.409

8.  Gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire is a valid tool to measure patient satisfaction in Asian country.

Authors:  Jin Young Yoon; Jae Myung Cha; Min Seob Kwak; Jung Won Jeon; Hyun Phil Shin; Kwang Ro Joo; Joung Il Lee
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Determinants of patient satisfaction and their willingness to return after primary total hip replacement: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Tom Schaal; Tonio Schoenfelder; Joerg Klewer; Joachim Kugler
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Results From a Patient Experience Study in Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors:  Divya Ann Jacob; Linda Franklin; Bruce Bernstein; Harpreet Pall
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2015-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.