Informed consent for GI endoscopy

Baseline Cannabinoid Use Is Associated with Increased Sedation Requirements for Outpatient Endoscopy

Background and Aims: Given the underlying properties of cannabinoids, we aimed to assess associations between cannabinoid use and sedation requirements for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at three endoscopy units. Adult outpatients undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with endoscopist-directed conscious sedation (EDCS) were given questionnaires on cannabinoid use and relevant parameters. Outcomes included intraprocedural midazolam, fentanyl, and diphenhydramine use, procedural tolerability, and adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of outcomes. Results: A total of 419 patients were included. Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with high midazolam use, defined as ≥5 mg, during EGD (AOR 2.89, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.19-7.50), but not during colonoscopy (AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41-1.91). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with the administration of any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.29-7.30) with a similar nonsignificant trend for colonoscopy (AOR 2.36, 95% CI: 0.81-7.04). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with increased odds of requiring high total sedation, defined as any of midazolam ≥5 mg, fentanyl ≥100 mcg, or any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.72, 95% CI: 1.35-11.68). Cannabinoid use was not independently associated with fentanyl use, intraprocedural awareness, discomfort, or adverse events. Conclusions: Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with higher sedation use during endoscopy with EDCS, particularly with midazolam and diphenhydramine. Given increasingly widespread cannabinoid use, endoscopists should be equipped with optimal sedation strategies for this population. As part of the informed consent process, cannabis users should be counseled that they may require higher sedation doses to achieve the same effect.

Video Consent for Colonoscopy Improves Knowledge Retention and Patient Satisfaction: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Informed consent for endoscopy is variable across institutions and remains understudied in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to standardize informed consent for screening and diagnostic colonoscopies with a supplemental video tool that includes the key components of informed consent.

METHODS

A video tool was developed that incorporated the key components of informed consent for colonoscopy. In addition, a 7-question survey was developed to query patients on core aspects of informed consent and satisfaction with the informed consent process. Patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to traditional consent or consent with the addition of a video tool. A pilot study determined the sample size. Traditional consent was standard of practice before the procedure. Patients in the video tool group watched the video tool in the preprocedure area followed by traditional consent. Both groups had the opportunity to address questions with the attending physician before the procedure. All patients were contacted 1 to 2 days following the colonoscopy to answer the question survey.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were eligible for participation, and 91 were included in the final data analysis. Subjects in the video tool group demonstrated significantly higher recall of key aspects of informed consent and higher satisfaction with the informed consent process versus the traditional consent group. The history of prior colonoscopy was similar between both groups. Mean endoscopy operation metrics were not negatively impacted by the inclusion of the video tool.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing screening and diagnostic colonoscopies who received informed consent supplemented by a video tool had a higher recall of core aspects of informed consent and higher satisfaction with the process, with no impact on procedural times.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.

Appropriateness and Safety of Direct Access Endoscopy in Hospitalized Patients

Background and objective Direct access endoscopy (DAE) allows hospitalists to refer patients for endoscopy without a gastroenterologist (GI) evaluation, potentially decreasing wait time and facilitating earlier discharge from the hospital. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAE for average-risk endoscopic procedures. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed by comparing patients who underwent a DAE with patients who underwent an endoscopy ordered by GI physicians at a tertiary care hospital. The procedure indications were obtained from the endoscopy reports and hospitalist progress notes. Appropriateness of each procedure was determined based on the guidelines from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Findings, procedure-related complications, and clinical significance were recorded. Results A total of 110 patients were included in this study; 40 were DAE and 70 were ordered by GI. The mean age of the patients was 55.5 years with 69 males and 41 females. In the DAE group, there were 31 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and nine colonoscopies performed, while in the GI group, there were 58 EGDs, 11 colonoscopies, and one push enteroscopy. All procedures fulfilled ASGE criteria; 20/40 DAE and 53/70 GI-ordered procedures had clinically significant findings. There was one complication in each group. Conclusion DAE allows a hospitalist to order an endoscopy without consultation with a GI physician. This study showed that all DAE procedures had met ASGE criteria for appropriateness, with 50% having clinically significant findings and no difference in adverse events. These results suggest that DAE is safe and effective in evaluating hospitalized patients for average-risk endoscopy.

Effect of Consent and Educational Adjuncts to Consent on Patient Perceptions About Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Informed consent is a vital preprocedural step for endoscopy but there are substantial variations in its delivery. We therefore sought to assess a multifaceted intervention to improve the consent process.

METHODS

Gastroenterologists at a tertiary center were educated on the recommended components of informed consent. Following this, 3 cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy were surveyed before and after consent. In one cohort, the effect of optimized verbal consent alone was assessed. In the second and third groups, the effects of the addition of either a handout or a video describing colonoscopy and its risks were evaluated. The primary outcomes were the changes between preconsent and postconsent survey responses regarding confidence in understanding the procedure's purpose, likelihood of adverse events, and levels of anxiety.

RESULTS

In total, 240 patients were included with 79 to 81 patients per group. There were no significant differences among the groups' survey responses. Compared with patients receiving verbal consent alone, fewer patients in the handout and video groups increased their perceived risk of adverse events following consent, but this difference did not reach significance (P=0.08). Examining all groups together, anxiety levels changed significantly after consent (P=0.003), with 31% of patients reducing their anxiety level, 8% increasing it, and 62% having no change.

CONCLUSIONS

The consent process appears to decrease patient anxiety about colonoscopy. When used in conjunction with a high-quality verbal consent, written or video educational adjuncts provided on the day of colonoscopy likely have no effect on patient perceptions.

Issues on informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an endoscopic operation with potential therapeutic risks. With the development of endoscopic techniques, the rate of performing ERCP is more and more higher and as a result, the rate of complications is increasing. Unfortunately, quite a few patients have little comprehension about the process of ERCP and its complications. This paper gives a brief overview of some issues on informed consent for ERCP.

What defines quality in small bowel capsule endoscopy

Small bowel capsule endoscopy is considered a first-line diagnostic tool for the investigation of small bowel diseases. Gastroenterological and endoscopic societies have proposed and established measures known as quality indicators, quality measures or performance measures for the majority of endoscopic procedures, in order to ensure competence, healthcare quality and define areas requiring improvement. However, there is a paucity of publications describing small bowel capsule endoscopy quality indicators. Hereby, we attempt to identify and describe a number of pre-procedure, intra-procedure and post-procedure quality indicators, regarding process measures in small bowel capsule endoscopy, after a comprehensive review of the literature.

Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Children

This article provides an overview of the evaluation and management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in children. The common etiologies at different ages are reviewed. Conditions with endoscopic importance for diagnosis or therapy include solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, polyps, vascular lesions, and colonic inflammation and ulceration. Diagnostic modalities for identifying causes of LGIB in children include endoscopy and colonoscopy, cross-sectional and nuclear medicine imaging, video capsule endoscopy, and enteroscopy. Pre-endoscopic preparation and decision-making unique to pediatrics is highlighted. The authors conclude with a summary of current and emerging therapeutic hemostatic techniques that can be used in pediatric patients.

Huge biloma after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy

BACKGROUND

Biliary leak can occur as a complication of biliary surgery, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography manipulations and endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. Consequently, bile may collect in the abdominal cavity, a condition called biloma. Rarely, it may reach a massive size.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 72-year-old man presented with gastric upset with gradual abdominal distension reaching a large size due to intra-abdominal bile collection (biloma) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy and stenting for post laparoscopic cholecystectomy common bile duct stricture. This huge biloma was treated by percutaneous insertion of a tube drain for a few days, evacuating the collection successfully without recurrence.

DISCUSSION

This patient might sustain injury to the common bile duct either by the guide wire or stent, or the injury occurred at the angle between the common bile duct and duodenum during sphincterotomy of the ampulla. Although any of these rents may lead to a bile leak, causing a huge biloma, they could be successfully treated by percutaneous drainage.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, a patient's complaints should not be ignored. (2) A massive biloma can occur due to such procedures. (3) Conservative treatment with minimal invasive technique can prove to be effective.

Endoscopic Therapy in Crohn's Disease: Principle, Preparation, and Technique

Stricture and fistula are common complications of Crohn's disease. Endoscopic balloon dilation and needle-knife stricturotomy has become a valid treatment option for Crohn's disease-associated strictures. Endoscopic therapy is also increasingly used in Crohn's disease-associated fistula. Preprocedural preparations, including routine laboratory testing, imaging examination, anticoagulant management, bowel cleansing and proper sedation, are essential to ensure a successful and safe endoscopic therapy. Adverse events, such as perforation and excessive bleeding, may occur during endoscopic intervention. The endoscopist should be well trained, always be cautious, anticipate for possible procedure-associated complications, be prepared for damage control during endoscopy, and have surgical backup ready. In this review, we discuss the principle, preparation, techniques of endoscopic therapy, as well as the prevention and management of endoscopic procedure-associated complications. We propose that inflammatory bowel disease endoscopy may be a part of training for "super" gastroenterology fellows, i.e., those seeking a career in advanced endoscopy or in inflammatory bowel disease.

Parental and youth understanding of the informed consent process for pediatric endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Informed consent (IC) is an essential communication between patient/representative and physician that acknowledges patient autonomy; assent is the equivalent process performed between youth and physician. For clinical procedures involving youth, only the IC process between guardian/parent and physician is required to be performed. Nevertheless, experts recommend that youth undergo assent whenever possible. In the present study, we explored both parental and youth understanding of required IC elements in IC discussions before pediatric endoscopy.

METHODS

Following signing of IC documents on the day of endoscopy at a tertiary care academic medical center, youth and their parents underwent structured interviews to assess comprehension of key elements of the IC process.

RESULTS

A total of 88 children and adolescents and their parents were evaluated. Two youth and 12 parents demonstrated comprehensive understanding of key IC elements for pediatric endoscopy. Suboptimal youth understanding was demonstrated for nature of the procedure (25% with adequate understanding) and related risks (17%), and alternatives (14%) to the procedure. Suboptimal parental understanding was demonstrated for procedure alternatives (24%). Youth overall understanding of IC varied by age, whereas parental global understanding of IC varied by physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of IC performed for pediatric endoscopy could be improved in both parents and youth. Our findings suggest that interventions targeting parents, youth, and physicians may be helpful. Further study is needed to determine whether our findings are representative of IC understanding at other pediatric endoscopy centers.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective study comparing nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol and monitored anesthesia care

INTRODUCTION

Adequate sedation is one of the cornerstones of good quality gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). Propofol sedation has increased significantly but there has been much debate over whether it can be administered by endoscopists. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

METHODS

A total of 2000 outpatients undergoing GIE at Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil), a tertiary-care private hospital, were divided into two matched groups: NAAP (n = 1000) and MAC (n = 1000). In NAAP, propofol doses were determined by the endoscopist. A second physician stayed in the room during the entire procedure, according to local regulations. In MAC, the anesthesiologist administered propofol.

RESULTS

In total, 1427 patients (71.3 %) were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and 573 were ASA class II. In NAAP, patients received more propofol + fentanyl (61.1 % vs. 50.5 %; P < 0.05) and there were fewer cases of deep sedation (44.7 % vs. 66.1 %; P < 0.05). Hypoxemia rates were similar (12.8 % for NAAP and 11.2 % for MAC; P = 0.3) but these reverted more rapidly in MAC (4.22 seconds vs. 7.26 seconds; P < 0.05). Agitation was more frequent in MAC (14.0 % vs. 5.6 %; P < 0.05). No later complications were observed. Patient satisfaction was very high and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this setting, NAAP was as safe and effective as MAC for healthy patients undergoing GIE. Clinical trial ref. no.: U1111-1134-4430.

Assessment of delivery methods used in the informed consent process at a safety-net hospital

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is legally and ethically required before a patient undergoes an endoscopic procedure, yet current literature suggests that patient comprehension of key components of informed consent is poor.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate specific aspects of and patient satisfaction with the informed consent process in patients who attended an endoscopy education class versus gastroenterology clinic.

DESIGN

Prospective survey that examined all components of the informed consent process.

SETTING

Safety-net hospital.

PATIENTS

Outpatients undergoing endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Endoscopy education class versus gastroenterology clinic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Patient recall of the components of and satisfaction with the informed consent process.

RESULTS

A total of 301 patients completed the survey, 52.0% of whom attended and were consented in an endoscopy education class. Patients who attended an endoscopy education class reported that a greater number of individual components of the informed consent process were explained to them as compared with patients who were consented in clinic. In multivariate analysis, patients who attended an education class were more likely to recall having had the alternatives (odds ratio [OR] 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-11.8), details of the procedure (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3-6.8), and what to expect after the procedure (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.5-5.6) explained to them by a provider. These patients were more likely to know they could refuse the procedure (OR 4.1; 95% CI, 1.0-16.8), compared with patients consented in the gastroenterology clinic.

LIMITATIONS

Non-randomized trial.

CONCLUSION

Patients from a diverse, urban population who attended a multilingual endoscopy education class reported having more elements of the informed consent process explained to them compared with patients who were consented in gastroenterology clinic.

[Colonoscopy quality control as a requirement of colorectal cancer screening]

The strategies used in population-based colorectal screening strategies culminate in colonoscopy and consequently the success of these programs largely depends on the quality of this diagnostic test. The main factors to consider when evaluating quality are scientific-technical quality, safety, patient satisfaction, and accessibility. Quality indicators allow variability among hospitals, endoscopy units and endoscopists to be determined and can identify those not achieving recommended standards. In Spain, the working group for colonoscopy quality of the Spanish Society of Gastroenterology and the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have recently drawn up a Clinical Practice Guideline that contains the available evidence on the quality of screening colonoscopy, as well as the basic requirements that must be met by endoscopy units and endoscopists carrying out this procedure. The implementation of training programs and screening colonoscopy quality controls are strongly recommended to guarantee the success of population-based colorectal cancer screening.

Preparation and patient evaluation for safe gastrointestinal endoscopy

Patient evaluation and preparation is the first and mandatory step to ensure safety and quality of endoscopic procedures. This begins and ends with identifying the patient, procedure type, and indication. Every patient has the right to be fully informed about risks and benefits of what is to be performed on them, and the medical personnel should respect the decision made by the patients. Thoroughly performed history taking and physical examination will guide the endoscopists to better stratify risk and plan sedation. Special attention should be given to higher-risk patients with higher-risk condition undergoing higher-risk procedures. Making preparations to monitor the patients and being ready to handle emergency situations throughout the endoscopic procedure are sine qua non to warrant safe endoscopy.

Reducing complications in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

This article reviews the principal aspects related to sedation in endoscopy and to the prevention of adverse events in some of the most frequently performed therapeutic upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures (esophageal dilation and stenting, endoscopic resection of upper GI early neoplasia, hemostasis of upper GI bleeding and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion). These procedures have an inherent risk of negative outcomes that cannot be entirely avoided. Endoscopic procedures are best performed by well-trained, competent and thoughtful endoscopists in facilities suited to provide for patient safety. Attention to clinical risk management may effectively reduce the frequency and intensity of adverse events, enhance recognition and early detection, and improve responsiveness.

Quality assurance in endoscopy nursing

Since the 1960s quality assurance has become an integral part of medicine and nursing. The aims of quality assurance cover patient and staff safety and satisfaction, economical factors and the implementation of health care policy. Endoscopy units can be established in hospitals, primary care or ambulatory endoscopy centres. The quality of endoscopy facilities should be the same irrespective where endoscopy is carried out. Endoscopy staff is responsible for individualised, comprehensive patient care, technical assistance including reprocessing, documentation and management of endoscopy units. Quality criteria for endoscopy nursing cover pre, intra and post procedure care. However, a complete separation between clinical medical and nursing outcome criteria is often difficult in Endoscopy, as the clinical interventions are a combination of both medical and nursing actions. It is the combined effort of all staff with the support from the health care provider that leads to a high quality of patient care in Endoscopy.

Sedation in digestive endoscopy: the Athens international position statements

BACKGROUND

Guidelines and practice standards for sedation in endoscopy have been developed by various national professional societies. No attempt has been made to assess consensus among internationally recognized experts in this field.

AIM

To identify areas of consensus and dissent among international experts on a broad range of issues pertaining to the practice of sedation in digestive endoscopy.

METHODS

Thirty-two position statements were reviewed during a 1 (1/2)-day meeting. Thirty-two individuals from 12 countries and four continents, representing the fields of gastroenterology, anaesthesiology and medical jurisprudence heard evidence-based presentations on each statement. Level of agreement among the experts for each statement was determined by an open poll.

RESULTS

The principle recommendations included the following: (i) sedation improves patient tolerance and compliance for endoscopy, (ii) whenever possible, patients undergoing endoscopy should be offered the option of having the procedure either with or without sedation, (iii) monitoring of vital signs as well as the levels of consciousness and pain/discomfort should be performed routinely during endoscopy, and (iv) endoscopists and nurses with appropriate training can safely and effectively administer propofol to low-risk patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

While the standards of practice vary from country to country, there was broad agreement among participants regarding most issues pertaining to sedation during endoscopy.

Acceptance and understanding of the informed consent procedure prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy by patients: a single-center experience in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Only a few reports have examined informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Korea. The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of the informed consent procedure in Korea.

METHODS

A total of 209 patients who underwent endoscopy were asked to answer a self-administered structured questionnaire on the informed consent procedure for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen patients completed questionnaires and were enrolled. In the survey, 91.2% answered that they understood the procedure, and the degree of understanding decreased with age; 85.8% were informed of the risks of the procedure, and the proportion was higher for inpatients and for those receiving therapeutic endoscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; 60.2% were informed of alternative methods, and the proportion was higher in older patients; 76.1% had the opportunity to ask questions during the informed consent procedure, and the proportion was higher in inpatients. The understanding of the risks of the endoscopic procedure was better in the younger and more highly educated groups. About 80% had sedation before endoscopy, and only 56% were informed of the risks of sedation during endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current informed consent process may be reasonably acceptable and understandable to the patients. However, the understanding of the risks of endoscopy was insufficient especially in the cases of older, poorly educated patients and outpatients. The information about alternatives, the opportunity to ask for additional information, and the information about the risks of sedation during endoscopy were also insufficient in the current consent process.

Risk management for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: questionnaire for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

More elderly patients now undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy following recent advances in endoscopic techniques. In this study, we conducted a high-risk survey of endoscopies in Japan, using a questionnaire administered prior to upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy (UGITE), and identified anticholinergic agents and glucagon preparations as high-risk premedication. We also evaluated the cardiovascular effects of anticholinergic agents and glucagon through measurements of plasma levels of human atrial natriuretic peptide (hANP) and human brain natriuretic peptide (hBNP). The subjects were 1480 patients who underwent UGITE. Nurses administered a pre-endoscopy questionnaire, questioning subjects regarding heart disease, hypertension, glaucoma, and urinary difficulties as risk factors for anticholinergic agents, and Diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for glucagon preparations. Evaluation of subjects divided into under 65 and over 65 age groups revealed that in subjects aged 65 and over, risk factors for anticholinergic agents were significantly more high than those for glucagon. Analysis of the cardiovascular effects of anticholinergic agents and glucagon, in the elderly patients showed that hANP levels were significantly higher following administration of anticholinergic agents, but the change was not significant for glucagon premedication. Taking a detailed history before UGITE with the aid of a questionnaire at the same time as informed consent is obtained, is extremely useful in terms of risk management and selection of the appropriate premedication.

The pre- and postprocedure assessment of patients undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy

A thorough and efficient pre-procedure evaluation of the patient's readiness to undergo sedation for endoscopy is essential. This evaluation will allow the formulation of an appropriate sedation plan for the patient, resulting in a safe and effective examination. The post procedure assessment of the patient confirms readiness for discharge and allows for appropriate patient education and follow-up planning.

The role of the endoscopy nurse or assistant in endoscopic sedation

Properly trained nursing personnel and allied staff are essential to the safe and effective practice of endoscopic sedation. Such individuals should possess a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of sedation agents, as well as the ability to monitor patients under sedation, recognize potential complications, and initiate appropriate and timely interventions. The endoscopy nurse or assistant must also understand their institutional policies and procedures pertaining to procedural sedation.