Original Article: Clinical Endoscopy
Providing an endoscopy report to patients after a procedure: a low-cost intervention with high returns

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.08.035Get rights and content

Background

Providing a procedure report to patients after endoscopy is inconsistently practiced by clinicians.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of providing a procedure report to patients after an outpatient endoscopy.

Outcome Measurements

Demographic data, including age, sex, race, and endoscopic procedures. Assessments one week after the procedure included anxiety, satisfaction, recall of endoscopic findings and recommendations, and compliance.

Design

A prospective, randomized, single-center, investigator-blinded study. Anxiety was measured by using the Beck Anxiety Inventory; satisfaction was measured with a modified American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy survey, which was validated as part of this study, and recall and compliance was measured by a patient interview, during which responses were compared with the original endoscopy report.

Setting and Patients

Single university outpatient endoscopy laboratory. Between June and September 2005, 115 patients were randomized, and 83 completed this protocol.

Results

The two groups were equally matched, except the intervention group (received report) was older (54.4 vs 50.7 years; P = .037). Receipt of an endoscopy report reduced postprocedure anxiety (P = .001) and improved recall of findings and recommendations (P = .001 for both). Satisfaction was very high for all patients and was unaffected by receipt of a report. Patients older than 60 years had significantly lower satisfaction scores by approximately 6 points (P = .004). Some subcategories of compliance were significantly better in the intervention group, but there was no effect on the number of patients who complied with all recommendations.

Limitation

Small number of patients.

Conclusions

The receipt of an endoscopy report at discharge reduces postprocedure anxiety, improves recall of findings and recommendations, and may increase compliance. This inexpensive and safe practice should be routinely adopted.

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)

  • D.T. Rubin et al.

    What is the most effective way to communicate results after endoscopy?

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2007)
  • R.F. Yacavone et al.

    Factors influencing patient satisfaction with GI endoscopy

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2001)
  • I.K. Larsen et al.

    Continuous evaluation of patient satisfaction in endoscopy centres

    Scand J Gastroenterol

    (2002)
  • J. Church et al.

    Randomized, controlled trial of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy

    Dis Colon Rectum

    (2003)
  • M. Guida et al.

    Outpatient operative hysteroscopy with bipolar electrode: a prospective multicentre randomized study between local anaesthesia and conscious sedation

    Hum Reprod

    (2003)
  • Cited by (20)

    • Interventions to improve the performance of upper GI endoscopy quality indicators

      2022, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Citation 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 Counseling
      Citation 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 Endoscopy
      Citation 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.

    • An Innovative, Quick and Cost-Effective Technique of Dispensing Endoscopy Reports

      2023, Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Presented at American College of Gastroenterology 2006, October 22-26, 2006, Las Vegas, Nevada (Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:A1044, 2006;101:A1431).

    View full text