Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A Prospective Audit of Patient Experiences in Colonoscopy Using the Global Rating Scale: A Cohort of 1187 Patients

2010; Pulsus Group; Volume: 24; Issue: 10 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1155/2010/724924

1916-7237

Vincent de Jonge, Jerome Sint Nicolaas, Eoin Lalor, Clarence Wong, Brennan Walters, Anand Bala, Ernst J. Kuipers, Monique E. van Leerdam, Sander JO Veldhuyzen van Zanten,

Global Cancer Incidence and Screening

BACKGROUND: The Global Rating Scale (GRS) comprehensively evaluates the quality of an endoscopy department, providing a patient-centred framework for service improvement. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient experiences during colonoscopy and identify areas that need service improvement using the GRS. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were asked to complete a pre- and postprocedure questionnaire. Questions were based on GRS items and a literature review. The preprocedure questionnaire addressed items such as patient characteristics and information provision. The postprocedure questionnaire contained questions regarding comfort, sedation, the attitude of endoscopy staff and aftercare. RESULTS: The preprocedure questionnaire was completed by 1187 patients, whereas the postprocedure part of the questionnaire was completed by 851 patients (71.9%). Fifty-four per cent of patients were first seen in the outpatient clinic. The indication for colonoscopy was explained to 85% of the patients. Sixty-five per cent of the patients stated that information about the risks of colonoscopy was provided. Sedation was used in 94% of the patients; however, 23% judged the colonoscopy to be more uncomfortable than expected. Ten per cent of patients rated the colonoscopy as (very) uncomfortable. Preliminary results of the colonoscopy were discussed with 87% of patients after the procedure. Twenty-one per cent of the patients left the hospital without knowing how to obtain their final results. Being comfortable while waiting for the procedure (OR 9.93) and a less uncomfortable procedure than expected (OR 2.99) were important determinants of the willingness to return for colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provided evidence supporting the GRS in identifyng service gaps in the quality of patient experiences for colonoscopy in a North American setting. Assessing experiences is useful in identifying areas that need improvement such as the provision of pre- and postprocedure information.