Sally Brown1, Roisin Bevan2, Greg Rubin1, Catherine Nixon3, Simon Dunn2, Simon Panter2, Colin J Rees4. 1. School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom; Northern Region Endoscopy Group, Newcastle, United Kingdom. 2. Northern Region Endoscopy Group, Newcastle, United Kingdom; South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, United Kingdom. 3. School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom. 4. School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom; Northern Region Endoscopy Group, Newcastle, United Kingdom; South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: GI endoscopy (GIE) is widely performed, with 1 in 3 people requiring an endoscopic procedure at some point. Patient experience of medical procedures is important, but, to date, experience measures of GIE are derived from clinician opinion rather than from patients themselves. In this meta-narrative review, the literature on methods of assessing patient experience in GIE is reported. METHODS: ScienceDirect, MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched to November 2013 using meta-narrative standards. Search terms included those related to endoscopic procedures, combined with those related to patient experience. RESULTS: A total of 3688 abstracts were identified and reviewed for relevance. A total of 3549 were excluded, leaving 139 for full-text review. We subsequently included 48 articles. Three sub-groups of studies were identified--those developing original measures of endoscopy-specific patient experience (27 articles), those modifying existing measures (10 articles), and those testing existing measures for reliability or validity (11 articles). Most measures focused on pain, discomfort, anxiety, and embarrassment. Three studies explored wider aspects of experience, including preparation, unit organization, and endoscopist preference. Likert scales, visual analog scale scores, and questionnaires were used most commonly. The Global Rating Scale was validated for use in 2 studies, confirming that those domains cover all aspects of endoscopy experience. Other measures were modified to assess endoscopic experience, such as the modified Group Health Association of America survey (mGHAA-9) (modified by 5 studies). CONCLUSIONS: No patient-derived and validated endoscopy-specific experience measures were found. Patient-derived and validated experience measures should be developed and used to model optimal healthcare delivery.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: GI endoscopy (GIE) is widely performed, with 1 in 3 people requiring an endoscopic procedure at some point. Patient experience of medical procedures is important, but, to date, experience measures of GIE are derived from clinician opinion rather than from patients themselves. In this meta-narrative review, the literature on methods of assessing patient experience in GIE is reported. METHODS: ScienceDirect, MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched to November 2013 using meta-narrative standards. Search terms included those related to endoscopic procedures, combined with those related to patient experience. RESULTS: A total of 3688 abstracts were identified and reviewed for relevance. A total of 3549 were excluded, leaving 139 for full-text review. We subsequently included 48 articles. Three sub-groups of studies were identified--those developing original measures of endoscopy-specific patient experience (27 articles), those modifying existing measures (10 articles), and those testing existing measures for reliability or validity (11 articles). Most measures focused on pain, discomfort, anxiety, and embarrassment. Three studies explored wider aspects of experience, including preparation, unit organization, and endoscopist preference. Likert scales, visual analog scale scores, and questionnaires were used most commonly. The Global Rating Scale was validated for use in 2 studies, confirming that those domains cover all aspects of endoscopy experience. Other measures were modified to assess endoscopic experience, such as the modified Group Health Association of America survey (mGHAA-9) (modified by 5 studies). CONCLUSIONS: No patient-derived and validated endoscopy-specific experience measures were found. Patient-derived and validated experience measures should be developed and used to model optimal healthcare delivery.
Authors: Matthew D Rutter; James East; Colin J Rees; Neil Cripps; James Docherty; Sunil Dolwani; Philip V Kaye; Kevin J Monahan; Marco R Novelli; Andrew Plumb; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Damian J M Tolan; Sophie Whyte; Stewart Bonnington; Alison Scope; Ruth Wong; Barbara Hibbert; John Marsh; Billie Moores; Amanda Cross; Linda Sharp Journal: Gut Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 31.793
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
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
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