Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: The Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool (CEST).

GOALS: We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported experience measure for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, the Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool that captures relevant domains that influence the patient's experience and identify factors that shape satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience measures are used to capture specific quality aspects of health care services. GI endoscopic services are high-volume services, and there is a lack of specific, validated instruments to capture various domains that shape the patients' experience with routine clinical endoscopic services. STUDY: After an environmental scan and structured literature review, focus groups with patients were conducted to identify relevant factors influencing the patient experience with GI endoscopic services. After an initial validation in 101 patients undergoing routine GI endoscopies, the instrument was tested in 7800 patients. In addition, the influence of sociodemographic factors on global satisfaction was explored. RESULTS: The final version included 26 specific items plus 4 global ratings for preprocedure, experience on day of procedure, postprocedure care, and infrastructure. In addition, a global rating of the overall experience was included. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in older patients (P<0.001) but not influenced by gender, nationality, marital status, education, or employment status. Interestingly, during periods of coronavirus disease-19-related service interruptions, the Net Promoter Score was significantly reduced (P<0.0001) providing evidence for the responsiveness of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool is a valid measure for the patient experience with the various components of endoscopic services, allows for the identification of domains that impact on the patient experience and is a practical tool to compare patient satisfaction over time and across facilities.

Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases. METHODS: A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs. RESULTS: In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing. CONCLUSIONS: Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.

"It ain't over till it's over!" Risk-mitigation strategies for patients with gastrointestinal diseases in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The available COVID-19 literature has focused on specific disease manifestations, infection control, and delivery or prioritization of services for specific patient groups in the setting of the acute COVID-19 pandemic. Local health systems aim to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and hospitals and health-care providers rush to provide the capacity for a surge of COVID-19 patients. However, the short, medium-term, and long-term outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases without COVID-19 will be affected by the ability to develop locally adapted strategies to meet their service needs in the COVID-19 setting. To mitigate risks for patients with GI diseases, it is useful to differentiate three phases: (i) the acute phase, (ii) the adaptation phase, and (iii) the consolidation phase. During the acute phase, service delivery for patients with GI disease will be curtailed to meet competing health-care needs of COVID-19 patients. During the adaptation phase, GI services are calibrated towards a "new normal," and the consolidation phase is characterized by rapid introduction and ongoing refinement of services. Proactive planning with engagement of relevant stakeholders including consumer representatives is required to be prepared for a variety of scenarios that are dictated by thus far undefined long-term economic and societal impacts of the pandemic. Because substantial changes to the delivery of services are likely to occur, it is important that these changes are embedded into quality and research frameworks to ensure that data are generated that support evidence-based decision-making during the adaptation and consolidation phases.