Brief Article
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 21, 2013; 19(15): 2355-2361
Published online Apr 21, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i15.2355
Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy
Vivian E Ekkelenkamp, Kevin Dowler, Roland M Valori, Paul Dunckley
Vivian E Ekkelenkamp, Kevin Dowler, Roland M Valori, Paul Dunckley, Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust, Gloucester GL1 3NN, United Kingdom
Vivian E Ekkelenkamp, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Author contributions: Ekkelenkamp VE and Dowler K contributed to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the article, final approval of the article; Valori RM contributed to conception and design, critical revision of the article for important intellectual content, final approval of the article; Dunckley P contributed to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data, critical revision of the article for important intellectual content, final approval of the article.
Correspondence to: Vivian E Ekkelenkamp, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. v.ekkelenkamp@erasmusmc.nl
Telephone: +31-10-7032983 Fax: +31-10-7034682
Received: October 25, 2012
Revised: December 19, 2012
Accepted: January 17, 2013
Published online: April 21, 2013
Processing time: 176 Days and 1.3 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To explore the relationship of patient comfort and experience to commonly used performance indicators for colonoscopy.

METHODS: All colonoscopies performed in our four endoscopy centres are recorded in two reporting systems that log key performance indicators. From 2008 to 2011, all procedures performed by qualified endoscopists were evaluated; procedures performed by trainees were excluded. The following variables were measured: Caecal intubation rate (CIR), nurse-reported comfort levels (NRCL) on a scale from 1 to 5, polyp detection rate (PDR), patient experience of the procedure (worse than expected, as expected, better than expected), and use of sedation and analgesia. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to identify relationships between performance indicators.

RESULTS: A total of 17027 colonoscopies were performed by 23 independent endoscopists between 2008 and 2011. Caecal intubation rate varied from 79.0% to 97.8%, with 18 out of 23 endoscopists achieving a CIR of > 90%. The percentage of patients experiencing significant discomfort during their procedure (defined as NRCL of 4 or 5) ranged from 3.9% to 19.2% with an average of 7.7%. CIR was negatively correlated with NRCL-45 (r = -0.61, P < 0.005), and with poor patient experience (r = -0.54, P < 0.01). The average dose of midazolam (mean 1.9 mg, with a range of 1.1 to 3.5 mg) given by the endoscopist was negatively correlated with CIR (r = -0.59, P < 0.01). CIR was positively correlated with PDR (r = 0.44, P < 0.05), and with the numbers of procedures performed by the endoscopists (r = 0.64, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: The best colonoscopists have a higher CIR, use less sedation, cause less discomfort and find more polyps. Measuring patient comfort is valuable in monitoring performance.

Keywords: Endoscopy; Colonoscopy; Quality; Comfort; Performance