Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy.

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.

Does use of a colonoscopy imaging device improve performance? A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic endoscopic imagers (MEIs) are being introduced during colonoscopy, principally for training. They aid recognition and resolution of loops. This has potential to improve technique resulting in increased completion rates and better patients' experience. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of a MEI improves colonoscopists' performance. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTINGS: Endoscopy unit in a district general hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy during a 33 month period were studied. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent colonoscopy with or without the use of a magnetic endoscopic imager. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient comfort and colonoscopy completion rates with and without the use of a magnetic endoscopic imager. Other data recorded included sedation and analgesia doses, patient age and gender, bowel preparation quality, antispasmodic dose, time of day, and consciousness level. RESULTS: A total of 5,879 colonoscopies were performed. A magnetic endoscopic imager was used for 4,873. A greater proportion of patients in the imager group had the lowest discomfort score (56.2 vs. 39.8%, logistic regression; p = 0.005). Doses of midazolam were similar in both groups (1.93 vs. 2.14 mg for imager and nonimager groups respectively). Completion rates were 94.5% with an imager and 91% without (logistic regression; p = 0.088). Logistic regression analysis showed that buscopan improved completion rate but detrimental factors included increasing patient age, discomfort, poor bowel preparation, and an afternoon procedure. Factors not influencing completion included gender, sedation and analgesia doses, and consciousness level. There was no correlation between documented reason for failure and use of the imager. LIMITATIONS: This was a nonrandomized trial although improved with logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic endoscopic imager use improves patient comfort during colonoscopy but has not been shown to improve completion.