Patient comfort scores do not affect endoscopist behavior during colonoscopy, while trainee involvement has negative effects on patient comfort

Abstract

Introduction Patient comfort is an important part of endoscopy and reflects procedure quality and endoscopist technique. Using the validated, Nurse Assisted Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS), this study aimed to determine whether the introduction of NAPCOMS would affect sedation use by endoscopists.

Patients and methods The study was conducted over 3 phases. Phase One and Two consisted of 8 weeks of endoscopist blinded and aware data collection, respectively. Data in Phase Three was collected over a 5-month period and scores fed back to individual endoscopists on a monthly basis.

Results NAPCOMS consists of 3 domains – pain, sedation, and global tolerability. Comparison of Phase One and Two, showed no significant differences in sedative use or NAPCOMS. Phase Three data showed a decline in fentanyl use between individual months (P = 0.035), but no change in overall NAPCOMS. Procedures involving trainees were found to use more midazolam (P = 0.01) and fentanyl (P = 0.01), have worse NAPCOMS scores, and resulted in longer procedure duration (P < 0.001). Data comparing gastroenterologists and general surgeons showed increased fentanyl use (P = 0.037), decreased midazolam use (P = 0.001), and more position changes (P = 0.002) among gastroenterologists.

Conclusions The introduction of a patient comfort scoring system resulted in a decrease in fentanyl use, although with minimal clinical significance. Additional studies are required to determine the role of patient comfort scores in quality control in endoscopy. Procedures completed with trainees used more sedation, were longer, and had worse NAPCOMS scores, the implications of which, for teaching hospitals and training programs, will need to be further considered.

• References

• 1 Canadian Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer statistics. Canadian Cancer Society [Internet]; 2015 [cited 2016 Jan 17]. Available from: http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/colorectal/statistics/?region=on
• 2 American Cancer Society. Key statistics for colorectal cancer [Internet]. American Cancer Society.; 2015 [cited 2016 Jan 17]. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics
• 3 Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B. et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 130-160
• 4 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC. et al. Colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750
• 5 Tinmouth J, Kennedy E, Baron D. et al. A Quality Initiative of the Program in Evidence-Based Care ( PEBC ), Cancer Care Ontario ( CCO ) Guideline for Colonoscopy Quality Assurance in Ontario A Quality Initiative of the Program in Evidence-Based Care ( PEBC ), Cancer Care Ontario ( CCO ) Guidel. Cancer Care Ontario, Progr Evidence-based Care Evidence-based Ser 2013; 15: 1-820
• 6 ASGE. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 101: 873-885
• 7 Lee TJW, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
• 8 Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 3-16
• 9 Rees CJ, Gibson ST, Rutter MD. et al. UK Key Performance Indicators & Quality Assurance Standards for Colonoscopy [Internet]. British Society of Gastroenterology; 2013 [cited 2016 Jan 17]. Available from: http://www.bsg.org.uk/images/stories/docs/clinical/guidance/uk_kpi_qa_standards_for_colonoscopy.pdf
• 10 Armstrong D, Barkun AN, Bridges R. et al. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 26: 17-31
• 11 Porostocky P, Chiba N, Colacino P. et al. A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 255-260
• 12 Ladas SD, Satake Y, Mostafa I. et al. Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe, North America, Asia, Africa and Australia. Digestion 2010; 82: 74-76
• 13 Sanchez del Rio A, Baudet JS, Fernadez O. et al. Evaluation of patient satisfaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 19: 896-900
• 14 de Jonge V, Sint NicolaasJ, Lalor EA. et al. A prospective audit of patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale: a cohort of 1,187 patients. Can J Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 607-613
• 15 Rostom A, Ross ED, Dubé C. et al. Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 255-261
• 16 Salmore R. Development of a new pain scale: Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale for sedated adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures. Gastroenterol Nurs 2002; 25: 257-262
• 17 Munson GW, Van Norstrand MD, O’donnell JJ. et al. Intraprocedural evaluation of comfort for sedated outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: the La Crosse (WI) intra-endoscopy sedation comfort score. Gastroenterol Nurs 2011; 34: 296-301
• 18 Vargo J, Howard K, Petrillo J. et al. Development and validation of the patient and clinician sedation satisfaction index for colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 156-162
• 19 Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM. et al. Physician Report Cards and Implementing Standards of Practice Are Both Significantly Associated With Improved Screening Colonoscopy Quality. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1134-1139
• 20 Ussui V, Coe S, Rizk C. et al. Stability of Increased Adenoma Detection at Colonoscopy. Follow-Up of an Endoscopic Quality Improvement Program-EQUIP-II. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 110: 1-8
• 21 Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN. et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219-226
• 22 Sanaka MR, Super DM, Feldman ES. et al. Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 97-103
• 23 Rex DK, Hewett DG, Raghavendra M. et al. The impact of videorecording on the quality of colonoscopy performance: a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2312-2317
• 24 Altman D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1990: 624
• 25 Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM. et al. Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 2355-2361
• 26 Ekkelenkamp VE, Shaw I, Valori R. et al. Comfort scores in colonoscopy performance. Gut 2011; 60 (Suppl. 01) A44-45
• 27 Boyd J, Lee L, Lanzon-Miller S. BSG 2014 abstracts BSG 2014 abstracts OC-040. Gut 2014; 25 (Suppl. 01) 2014-6
• 28 Boyd J, Harper C, Chapman T. et al. BSG 2014 abstracts. Gut 2014; 63 (Suppl. 01) 2014
• 29 Schoenfeld PS, Cash B, Kita J. et al. Effectiveness and patient satisfaction with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by registered nurses. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 158-162
• 30 Mehran A, Jaffe P, Efron J. et al. Colonoscopy: why are general surgeons being excluded?. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 1971-1973
• 31 Jiang M, Sewitch MJ, Barkun AN. et al. Endoscopist specialty is associated with colonoscopy quality. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 78
• 32 East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N. et al. Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 263-269
• 33 Koksal AS, Kalkan IH, Torun S. et al. A simple method to improve adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: altering patient position. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 509-512
• 34 East JE, Bassett P, Arebi N. et al. Dynamic patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increase adenoma detection: a randomized, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 456-463
• 35 Lee S-W, Chang JH, Ji J-S. et al. Effect of Dynamic Position Changes on Adenoma Detection During Colonoscope Withdrawal: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 63-69
• 36 Depew WT, Hookey LC, Vanner SJ. et al. Opportunity costs of gastrointestinal endoscopic training in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 733-738
• 37 Jackson JL, Osgard E, Fincher RK. Resident participation in flexible sigmoidoscopy does not affect patient satisfaction. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1563-1566
• 38 Eckardt AJ, Swales C, Bhattacharya K. et al. Open access colonoscopy in the training setting: which factors affect patient satisfaction and pain?. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 98-105
• 39 Sarkar S, Athwal V, Sturgess RP. et al. The effect of high quality assurance measures in bowel cancer screening on patient satisfaction of colonoscopy. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2012; 21: 251-258
• 40 Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Bowen NJ. et al. Patient Satisfaction With Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1790
• 41 Sedlack RE, Kolars JC, Alexander JA. Computer simulation training enhances patient comfort during endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 348-352
• 42 de Groen PC, Srinivasan N, Stanek S. et al. 73 Automated, Objective Measurements of Colonoscopy Technique: A Comparison Between Trainees and Staff. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 15-16
• 43 Shah N, Sanaka MR, Mullen KD. et al. Comparison of Polyp Detection Rates During Colonoscopy by Attending Staff Alone Versus Trainee Plus Attending Staff: Are Two People Better Than One?. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: AB264
• 44 Eckardt AJ, Swales C, Bhattacharya K. et al. Does trainee participation during colonoscopy affect adenoma detection rates?. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1337-1344
• 45 Peters SL, Hasan AG, Jacobson NB. et al. Level of fellowship training increases adenoma detection rates. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 439-442
• 46 Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG. et al. Trainee participation is associated with increased small adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1223-31
• 47 Rogart JN, Siddiqui UD, Jamidar PA. et al. Fellow involvement may increase adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2841-2846