Original Article: Clinical EndoscopyProviding an endoscopy report to patients after a procedure: a low-cost intervention with high returns
Section snippets
Patients and methods
This was a prospective, single university center, randomized, investigator-blinded study. Patient recruitment by the investigator (M.S. or K.M.) occurred on the day of the endoscopy, immediately after patient registration and before the patient entered the endoscopy laboratory. At that time, the protocol was reviewed with the patient, and informed consent was obtained. These two investigators (M.S. and K.M.) were not involved in the endoscopy and were blinded to patient randomization. Eligible
Results
We enrolled a total of 115 patients (59 intervention; 56 standard) into the trial after offering entry to 142 patients. The reasons for the patient not entering the study were as follows: declined to participate (21), taken for endoscopy before consent completed (4), inability to adequately understand English (1), and unavailable for follow-up (1). Of those enrolled, follow-up contact was not achieved for 32 patients (28%), which yielded an analysis sample of 83 patients (43 intervention; 40
Discussion
We found that the simple, safe, and inexpensive intervention of providing an endoscopy report to patients diminished postprocedure anxiety, improved recall of findings and recommendations, and increased some categories of compliance. Physicians rightly consider endoscopic procedures routine, effective, and safe. However, it is important to be mindful that, despite physician reassurance, patients often remain highly anxious about such interventions.2, 6, 27 Despite a review of the results after
References (30)
- et al.
Utility of Web-based assessment of patient satisfaction with endoscopy
Am J Gastroenterol
(2003) - et al.
Resident participation in flexible sigmoidoscopy does not affect patient satisfaction
Am J Gastroenterol
(2000) - et al.
Does insertion of rectal tube after colonoscopy reduce patient discomfort and improve satisfaction?
Gastrointest Endosc
(2003) - et al.
Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial
Pain
(2003) - et al.
Patient preferences for gender of endoscopists
Gastrointest Endosc
(2002) - et al.
Notification and follow-up of Pap test results: current practice and women's preferences
Prev Med
(1994) - et al.
A critical review of interventions to improve compliance with prescribed medications
Patient Educ Couns
(1987) - et al.
Factors influencing the eradication of Helicobacter pylori with triple therapy
Gastroenterology
(1992) - et al.
Patient compliance to instructions after oral surgical procedures
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2001) - et al.
The Legs for Life screening for peripheral vascular disease: results of a prospective study designed to improve patient compliance with physician recommendations
J Vasc Interv Radiol
(2001)
What is the most effective way to communicate results after endoscopy?
Gastrointest Endosc
Factors influencing patient satisfaction with GI endoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
Continuous evaluation of patient satisfaction in endoscopy centres
Scand J Gastroenterol
Randomized, controlled trial of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy
Dis Colon Rectum
Outpatient operative hysteroscopy with bipolar electrode: a prospective multicentre randomized study between local anaesthesia and conscious sedation
Hum Reprod
Cited by (20)
Interventions to improve the performance of upper GI endoscopy quality indicators
2022, Gastrointestinal EndoscopyCitation Excerpt :Interventions aimed at improving these postprocedural quality indicators are adequate documentation of findings and interventions delivered during EGD and ensuring clear communication with the patient in the form of written instructions and/or communication that takes place after EGD. Interventions such as supplementing patients with written discharge instructions (ie, a computer-generated endoscopy report that summarizes the results and plans for follow-up) were shown to be helpful for recall and compliance with care, obviating the need for a telephone call 24 hours after EGD.28-32 Endoscopy practices should have established protocols in place to ensure adequate communication of EGD findings and how results are relayed to their patients.
Releasing test results directly to patients: A multisite survey of physician perspectives
2015, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :Concerns that direct notification had potential to lead to patient misunderstanding, anxiety, and confusion remained prominent among survey respondents. Recent evidence shows that access to medical information (including test results) does not necessarily increase patient anxiety [38,39] and may in some cases decrease anxiety [40,41]. Considering the frequency of delayed follow-up of abnormal test results [5], patients may be more likely to experience anxiety while waiting for test results [42–44].
Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: A meta-narrative review of the literature
2015, Gastrointestinal EndoscopyCitation Excerpt :One compared two methods of assessing patient evaluation of pain.48 Two focused on improving or comparing patient satisfaction and incorporated measure validation into the study design.47,49 We consider the studies in 3 groups—those focused on the validation of an endoscopy-specific measure of patient experience, those focused on validating how a patient experience measure is delivered, and those in which measure validation occurred but was not the main focus.
Colonoscopy quality control as a requirement of colorectal cancer screening
2013, Gastroenterologia y HepatologiaAwareness of Surveillance Recommendations Among Patients With Colorectal Adenomas
2012, Clinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyAn Innovative, Quick and Cost-Effective Technique of Dispensing Endoscopy Reports
2023, Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery
Presented at American College of Gastroenterology 2006, October 22-26, 2006, Las Vegas, Nevada (Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:A1044, 2006;101:A1431).