Patient Satisfaction with Endoscopy Measurement and Assessment

Abstract

Background: Several factors could influence patient satisfaction with endoscopy including technical quality of care, comfort and tolerability of the procedure, whether informed consent has been obtained, the level of communication with staff before and after the procedure, and delays in appointments. Aim: To assess what factors should be measured in assessing patient satisfaction by using a 16-point questionnaire based on the informed consent recommendations of the first workshop at Kos, and of the criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and to compare the response of patients with gastroenterologists and the support staff. Method: The questionnaire was answered by 81 patients, 71 gastroenterologists and 36 support staff (nurses and receptionists). It graded the relative importance of different factors which influenced the perception of satisfaction in those undergoing endoscopy. These factors included: the waiting time for appointment, the explanation received at various stages before and after the procedure, the reception process, the importance of premedication against pain and discomfort, privacy and satisfaction related to findings at the procedure. Results: Thirteen of the 16 factors were generally graded as important for patient satisfaction. The finding at endoscopy, a written explanation and the alternatives to the endoscopic procedure were regarded as of lesser importance. Gastroenterologists tended to rate the importance of a written explanation and the explanations from the nurses before and after the procedure lower than did the patients and nursing staff. Conclusions: The courtesy and personal manner of the entire medical staff, as evidenced by the explanation of the procedure by the various physicians before and after and the process of admission, were generally rated of the highest importance. The nurses’ ranking of the various factors was closer to that of the patients than of the gastroenterologists.

Results From a Patient Experience Study in Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

“…An additional issue requiring deeper study is to determine what would be the optimal method to convey this information. It was found in another study that even when patients were provided with a computer-generated written report in addition to a verbal report, postprocedure recommendations could only be identified by the patient 72% of the time and the results 75% of the time (17). …”

A Literature Review of Quality in Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy from the Patient Perspective

“…Study methodologies differed in terms of questionnaire format, timing of questionnaire completion and mode of questionnaire administration. Questionnaire formats included 5-point rating scales (20,22,25,27) and Likert scales (21,24,26,27), binary 'Yes/No' responses (20) and 100 mm visual analogue scales (23). In two studies (20,21), the degree of pain during the procedure was assessed using either a 4-or 7-point rating scale.…”

“…The mode of questionnaire administration also varied across studies, with investigators using face-to-face interviews (20,24,25,27), telephone interviews (20,26) and mail-back questionnaires (20)(21)(22)(23)27) to obtain information on patients' perspectives. Response rates ranged from 54% to 90%, although three studies (24,25,27) did not provide this information.…”

“…In five studies (20)(21)(22)(23)26), several wait times were considered to be important including wait time from initial assessment to the endoscopy appointment, from registration in the endoscopy facility to the procedure and from entry to the recovery room until discharge. In seven studies (20,(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27), endoscopy unit staff influenced patient satisfaction including their manner, skills, specialty, and adequate discussions and/or explanations of the procedure and/or results with the endoscopist. Two studies (23,27) found associations between a higher level of pain score or pretest anxiety and lower patient satisfaction.…”

Process mapping the patient journey: an introduction

“…[24][25][26][27] He recruits a team: an experienced performance manager, a sister from the endoscopy department, and two junior doctors.…”