[Patient satisfaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of a multicenter study]

Patient satisfaction and safety in the administration of sedation by nursing staff in the digestive endoscopy service: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The satisfaction of patients with sedation by nursing staff is an issue of interest for the quality of health care, influencing the recovery and well-being of patients as well as their confidence in and adherence to treatment. One of the most frequently performed diagnostic and therapeutic tests requiring sedation are digestive endoscopies, so it would be interesting to study satisfaction in these services.

AIM

To determine the level of patient satisfaction and safety with sedation via digestive endoscopies by nurses.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study in the Digestive Endoscopy Service at the University Hospital of Toledo, Spain. The sample consisted of 660 adult patients from the digestive endoscopy service who were sedated between June-September 2023. The degree of satisfaction with the service was measured by the questionnaire: Survey of patient satisfaction with the digestive endoscopy service. The study was approved by the ethics committee.

RESULTS

Patients who reported satisfaction with the treatment were very satisfied with the sedation provided by the nurses. The most valued item was the attention of the nursing professionals. The least valued items were the waiting time for the appointment and the time spent in the waiting room on the same day. The incidence of complications recorded during the test were minimal (2% of all patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients are satisfied with the sedation administered by nurses via digestive endoscopies, and complications were rare, supporting the efficacy and acceptance of this practice. Clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents in Spain guarantee that nurses have autonomy to administer sedation in digestive endoscopy services, but there is a lack of national regulations to support this technique. The current consensus in Spain is that specific training is necessary for such nurses.

Quality indicators to assess a colorectal cancer prevention program

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to implement a set of indicators to assess the quality of care of a new healthcare model for prevention of colorectal cancer in a high-risk population.

METHODS

Information was obtained retrospectively from electronic clinical records, review of documentation, and a survey. The high-risk clinic for colorectal cancer was created in Barcelona (Spain) in 2006. All users at greater risk of colorectal cancer assessed through the new healthcare model were included. Twenty-one indicators were computed using defined formulas and standards. Logistic regression models were computed to analyze factors related to adherence to the screening and surveillance prevention strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 1,275 users were included. Eight of seventeen indicators reached the quality standard (80 percent structure, 50 percent process, and 17 percent outcome), whereas four indicators did not have a previously defined standard. The overall adherence to the screening and surveillance program was 67 percent. Users aged 59 and older had almost two times greater probabiblity (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.1) of adherence than younger users; users with surveillance colonoscopies presented a 7.4 times (95 percent CI, 4.6-11.7) greater probability of adherence than those with screening colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

The indicators have been shown to be feasible and valid tools to identify areas of improvement in this new model, such as information systems, continuity of care, and communication among professionals. Because this was the first time these indicators were applied to assess the high-risk clinic for colorectal cancer, further implementation is required to improve the interpretability of results.

Evaluation of patient satisfaction of an outpatient gastroscopy service in an Asian tertiary care hospital

Background

There are limited published studies on patient satisfaction towards endoscopy from Asian countries. Different methods of evaluation of patient satisfaction may yield different results and there is currently no study to compare results of on-site versus phone-back interviews.

Method

On-site followed by phone-back interviews were carried out on consecutive patients attending the outpatient gastroscopy service of University of Malaya Medical Centre between July 2010 and January 2011 using the modified Group Health Association of America-9 (mGHAA-9) questionnaire. The question on technical skill of endoscopist was replaced with a question on patient comfort during endoscopy.

Results

Seven hundred patients were interviewed. Waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day, and discomfort during procedure accounted for over 90% of unfavorable responses. Favorable response diminished to undesirable level when waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day exceeded 1 month and 1 hour, respectively. Satisfaction scores were higher for waiting time for appointment but lower for personal manner of nurses/staff and explanation given during phone-back interview. There was no significant difference in satisfaction scores for other questions, including overall rating between the two methods.

Conclusion

Waiting times and discomfort during procedure were main causes for patient dissatisfaction. Phone-back interview may result in different scores for some items compared with on-site interview and should be taken into account when comparing results using the different methods.

[Development of indicators to evaluate colorectal cancer prevention programs in the high-risk population: the experience of a high-risk colorectal cancer clinic]

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

In 2006, the High-Risk Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Clinic was set up in Barcelona, a new healthcare model aimed at individuals and/or patients with an increased risk of developing CRC. The aim of this study was to develop a set of indicators to evaluate CRC prevention programs in the high-risk population and to implement them in the CRC to confirm their feasibility and validity in identifying areas for improvement.

METHODS

A literature search was performed and consensus techniques were applied with experts linked to the prevention programs in the distinct autonomous regions in Spain to propose a conceptual model for the evaluation and indicators. Users' opinions were introduced through focus groups for the proposed set of indicators. All experts participating in the consensus meetings and Delphi study evaluated the importance of each indicator (from 1 to 10) and their degree of agreement (agree strongly, agree with modifications, or eliminate this indicator). Expert consensus was considered to have been reached when 80% strongly agreed or agreed with the inclusion of the indicator. In the implementation phase, we included users (with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma, polyposis syndrome, CRC or a familial history of CRC) attending the program. Information was obtained from computerized medical histories and clinical documentation. In addition, health professionals linked to the program were surveyed. To calculate each indicator, its formula was computed and the indicator was then compared with a standard previously agreed on by the experts in the first phase.

RESULTS

Expert consensus was reached in 30 indicators. In the implementation phase, 21 feasible indicators that showed the greatest simplicity and validity in identifying areas for improvement were calculated. Of these, two measured aspects related to accessibility, seven measured patient-centered care, five measured continuity of care, one measured patient safety and four evaluated clinical effectiveness. Overall, eight of the 17 indicators achieved the previously agreed standard of quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The robustness and importance of the proposed set of indicators is supported by the wide participation of experts from distinct specialties and the adequate agreement reached. The present study serves to identify areas for improvement in the program. Periodic measurement of these indicators will allow the changes produced in this program and their utility to be evaluated and will aid assessment of other CRC prevention programs in the high-risk population.

Evaluation of patient satisfaction of an outpatient colonoscopy service in an asian tertiary care hospital

Aim. To evaluate patient satisfaction towards an outpatient colonoscopy service and analyze areas of dissatisfaction for potential improvement. Method. Consecutive patients attending the outpatient diagnostic colonoscopy service in University of Malaya Medical Centre between 1st February and 31th July 2010 were interviewed using a questionnaire modified from the modified Group Health Association of America-9 (mGHAA-9) questionnaire. Favorable/unfavorable responses to each question, contribution of each question to unfavorable responses, and effect of waiting times on favorable/unfavorable response rates were analyzed. Results. Interview was carried out on 426 patients (52.1% men). Mean age ± standard deviation was 61.3 ± 12.9 years old. Mean waiting times for colonoscopy appointment and on colonoscopy day were 3.8 ± 2.7 months and 1.1 ± 0.8 hours, respectively. The main factors that contributed to unfavorable responses were bowel preparation followed by waiting times for colonoscopy appointment and on colonoscopy day (32.3%, 27.5%, and 19.6%, resp.). Favorable responses diminished to undesirable levels when waiting times for colonoscopy appointment and on colonoscopy day exceeded 1 month and 1 hour, respectively. Conclusion. Bowel preparation and waiting times were main factors for patient dissatisfaction. Waiting times for colonoscopy appointment and on colonoscopy day should not exceed 1 month and 1 hour, respectively, to maintain acceptable levels of patient satisfaction.