The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Development and content validity testing of a colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measure: the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS)

BACKGROUND

In endoscopic care, favourable patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy are essential for the patient's willingness to repeat the procedure. To ensure that significant experiences are measured, patients should be involved in creating the measurement instruments. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a colonoscopy-specific PREM by (1) operationalising patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure and (2) evaluating its content validity.

METHODS

The colonoscopy-specific PREM was developed in two stages: (1) operationalisation with item generation and (2) content validity testing. A previously developed conceptual model, based on a systematic literature review that illustrates patients' (n = 245) experiences of undergoing a colonoscopy, formed the theoretical basis. To assess the degree to which the PREM reflected patients' experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure, content validity was tested-through face validity with healthcare professionals (n = 4) and cognitive interviews with patients (n = 14) having experienced a colonoscopy. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated to investigate the relevance of the items.

RESULTS

The Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS) is a colonoscopy-specific PREM consisting of five different constructs: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship and understanding. Each construct was defined and generated into a pool of items (n = 77). After face-validity assessment with healthcare professionals, a draft 52-item version of the PECS was ready for content validity testing by the patients. During cognitive interviews the patients contributed valuable insights that led to rewording and removal of items. Results from the CVI suggest that the PECS and its content are relevant (I-CVI range 0.5-1, S-CVI/Ave = 0.86). The final PECS consists of 30 items representing a colonoscopy-specific PREM.

CONCLUSION

The PECS is a new 30-item PREM instrument designed for adult elective colonoscopy patients after they have undergone the procedure. Each item in the PECS derives from a conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Patients and healthcare professionals were involved in developing the PECS, which measures colonoscopy-specific patient experiences before, during and after the procedure. The content validity testing positively contributed to the development of the PECS. Psychometric properties need to be evaluated further.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Patient experiences of Cytosponge: a qualitative study

Objective

Cytosponge is a novel technology for oesophageal pathology diagnosis. Uses include diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus and as a triage tool to prioritise upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patient experience is a key component of quality care. Previous work has developed endoscopy patient-reported experience measures. An appropriate tool to measure patient experience of Cytosponge is required. The aim of this work was to describe the patient experience of Cytosponge.

Design/Method

Individuals aged 18 years or over, who had undergone Cytosponge from September 2020 to March 2021, were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Themes were organised into two overarching areas relating to patient experiences and patient perceptions of the test.

Results

19 patients underwent interview (aged 37-80 years, 13 male). In terms of patient experiences of Cytosponge, five themes were identified: emotional reaction; expectations; environment and physical process; sensory experience; communication and information. All themes were present across all procedural phases, aside from sensory experience which was only present during the test. With regard to perception of the test, two major themes were identified: test novelty (encompassing patient awareness of the test and reaction to the new test) and trusting the test results.

Conclusion

Patients must remain central to novel technologies such as Cytosponge. Measuring patient experience is essential to achieve that. This study demonstrates five major themes which describe the patient experience of this procedure. These have been used to adapt the Newcastle ENDOPREM for use in Cytosponge.

Patients' experience of using colonoscopy as a diagnostic test after a positive FOBT/FIT: a systematic review of the quantitative literature

OBJECTIVES

Faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are among the most used screening modalities for colorectal cancer (CRC). Colonoscopy is also widely used as a screening and diagnostic test for adults with a positive FOBT/FIT. Patient experience of colonoscopy is an important component for most CRC screening programmes. Individuals with negative experiences are less likely to engage with colonoscopy in the future and can deter others from attending colonoscopy when invited. This review synthesised data on patient experience with colonoscopy, following a positive result, to provide insights into how to improve patient experience within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for quantitative questionnaire studies evaluating patient-reported experience with colonoscopy, following a positive screening FOB/FIT result. The search was limited to studies published between 2000 and 2021 (ie, when the first FOBT/FIT screening programmes for CRC were introduced). Data-driven and narrative summary techniques were used to summarise the literature.

RESULTS

In total, six studies from the UK (n=4), Spain (n=1) and the Netherlands (n=1) were included in the review (total participants: 152 329; response rate: 68.0-79.3%). Patient experiences were categorised into three 'stages': 'pre-colonoscopy', 'during the test' and 'post-colonoscopy'. Overall, patients reported a positive experience in all six studies. Bowel preparation was the most frequently endorsed issue experienced pre-test (experienced by 10.0-41.0% of individuals, across all studies), pain and discomfort for during the test (experienced by 10.0-21.0% of participants) and abdominal pain and discomfort after the test (these were experienced by 14.8-22% of patients).

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted that patient-reported experiences associated with colonoscopy were generally positive. To improve the colonoscopy experience, bowel screening centres should investigate means to: make bowel preparation more acceptable, make colonoscopy less painful and reduce post-colonoscopy symptoms.

High quality colonoscopy: using textbook process as a composite quality measure

BACKGROUND : High quality colonoscopy is fundamental to good patient outcomes. "Textbook outcome" has proven to be a feasible multidimensional measure for quality assurance between surgical centers. In this study, we sought to establish the "textbook process" (TP) as a new composite measure for the optimal colonoscopy process and assessed how frequently TP was attained in clinical practice and the variation in TP between endoscopists. METHODS : To reach consensus on the definition of TP, international expert endoscopists completed a modified Delphi consensus process. The achievement of TP was then applied to clinical practice. Prospectively collected data in two endoscopy services were retrospectively evaluated. Data on colonoscopies performed for symptoms or surveillance between 1 January 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS : The Delphi consensus process was completed by 20 of 27 invited experts (74.1 %). TP was defined as a colonoscopy fulfilling the following items: explicit colonoscopy indication; successful cecal intubation; adequate bowel preparation; adequate withdrawal time; acceptable patient comfort score; provision of post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations in line with guidelines; and the absence of the use of reversal agents, early adverse events, readmission, and mortality. In the two endoscopy services studied, TP was achieved in 5962/8227 colonoscopies (72.5 %). Of 48 endoscopists performing colonoscopy, attainment of TP varied significantly, ranging per endoscopist from 41.0 % to 89.1 %. CONCLUSION : This study proposes a new composite measure for colonoscopy, namely "textbook process." TP gives a comprehensive summary of performance and demonstrates significant variation between endoscopists, illustrating the potential benefit of TP as a measure in future quality assessment programs.

Determining efficacy of dynamic multimedia bowel preparation instructions versus standard instructions on adenoma detection and patient reported measures (DIGICLEAN trial): a study protocol for a multicentre, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy plays important roles in bowel cancer screening and treatment. Poor bowel preparation occurs in 20-25% of colonoscopies. This negatively impacts adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates, procedural time, requirement for repeat colonoscopies, healthcare costs and likelihood of patient withdrawal from screening programmes. It is unclear whether a combination of multimedia modalities can improve bowel preparation quality, adenoma detection rates and patient-reported measures in those undergoing colonoscopy assessment.

METHODS

The DIGICLEAN trial is a prospective, parallel, multicentre, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised controlled trial. The trial will enrol 1294 participants aged 45 years and older who are indicated for a colonoscopy as an outpatient with a positive faecal occult blood test, iron deficiency anaemia or rectal bleeding. Participants will be randomised into the interventional arm, where bowel preparation instructions are delivered via a web-based application which uses scheduled short messaging service, regular patient survey assessment, email and videos; or the control arm, where routine standard written, verbal or emailed instructions are administered. The web-based application will assess patient-reported bloating, constipation and dietary adherence leading up to the colonoscopy. Depending on patient responses, additional aperients may be encouraged digitally in the interventional arm with same instructions made available in written format for the control arm. Patient-reported measures will be collected in both arms the day after the procedure using the validated Newcastle ENDOPREM questionnaire. In some sites, participants will undergo digital pre-anaesthetic screening as well. The co-primary endpoints are the adenoma detection rates and patient-reported measures taken after the colonoscopy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH00059). Findings will be reported at national and international gastroenterology meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622000747729.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

RESULTS

We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

CONCLUSION

Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

42020173906.

UK ERCP sedation practices, patient comfort and endoscopist characteristics: National Endoscopy Database (NED) analysis on behalf of the JAG and BSG

Objectives

This analysis assessed current endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) practice within the UK, including use of sedation and patient comfort.

Methods

ERCPs conducted over 1 year (1 July 2021-30 June 2022) and uploaded to the National Endoscopy Database (NED) were analysed. The endoscopist workforce was classified by gender and specialty, use of sedation was analysed. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between patient age, gender and procedure indications on moderate to severe discomfort risk.

Results

27 812 ERCPs were performed by 491 endoscopists in 175 sites and uploaded to NED, an estimated 50% of total UK activity. 13% were training procedures, 94% of the endoscopists were male, with 72% being gastroenterologists. Most ERCPs were performed under conscious sedation (89%). The discomfort rate among patients aged 60-90 undergoing ERCP under conscious sedation was 4.2% (95% CI 3.9% to 4.5%), with only 5.5% (95% CI 5.2% to 5.9%) receiving greater than 5 mg midazolam or 100 µg fentanyl.Younger patients (<30 years) had a higher discomfort risk during conscious sedation ERCPs than those aged 70-79 (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 4.3, p<0.05), while male patients had a lower discomfort risk compared with females (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.0, p=0.05).Enhanced sedation (propofol or general anaesthetic) was associated with lower frequency of discomfort (0.3%, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) compared with conscious sedation (5.1%, 95% CI 4.9% to 5.4%, p<0.05).

Conclusions

Conscious sedation is well tolerated for most patients and prescribing practices have improved. However, triage of more patients, particularly young females, to enhanced sedation lists should be considered to reduce discomfort rates in future.