Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?

David M. Staff, Kia Saeian, Fedja Rochling, Subashini Narayanan, Mark Kern, Reza Shaker, Walter J. Hogan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The use of open access endoscopy is increasing. Its effect on the adequacy of patient informed consent, procedure acceptance and the impact on subsequent communication/transfer of procedure results to the patient have not been evaluated. The aim of our study was to compare the extent of preknowledge of procedures and test explanation, patient medical complexity, information transfer and overall patient satisfaction between a patient group referred for outpatient open access endoscopy versus a patient group from a gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialty clinic. Methods: Information was obtained from all patients presenting for outpatient upper and lower endoscopy by using a 1-page questionnaire. Patients from the two groups who had an outpatient upper/lower endoscopic procedure were contacted by phone after the procedure to obtain information with a standardized questionnaire. Results: The open access patients reported receiving significantly less information to help them identify the procedure (p < 0.01) and less explanation concerning the nature of the procedure than the group of patients referred from the subspecialty clinic (p < 0.005). There was no difference between the two groups in satisfaction scores for examinations performed under conscious sedation. For flexible sigmoidoscopy without sedation, however, the GI clinic patient group were more satisfied with their procedure. The majority of patients, regardless of access, were more likely to receive endoscopic results from a gastroenterologist than the referring physician. Furthermore, the patients in the GI clinic group who underwent colonoscopy felt significantly better at follow-up. Conclusions: Patients undergoing open access procedures are less likely to be properly informed about their endoscopic procedure. Our results indicate that with open access endoscopy, a defined mechanism needs to be in place for communication of endoscopic results to the patient.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)212-217
Number of pages6
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume52
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Endoscopy
Outpatients
Communication
Conscious Sedation
Sigmoidoscopy
Colonoscopy
Informed Consent
Patient Satisfaction
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Staff, D. M., Saeian, K., Rochling, F., Narayanan, S., Kern, M., Shaker, R., & Hogan, W. J. (2000). Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient? Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 52(2), 212-217. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2000.107719

Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient? / Staff, David M.; Saeian, Kia; Rochling, Fedja; Narayanan, Subashini; Kern, Mark; Shaker, Reza; Hogan, Walter J.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 52, No. 2, 01.01.2000, p. 212-217.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Staff, DM, Saeian, K, Rochling, F, Narayanan, S, Kern, M, Shaker, R & Hogan, WJ 2000, 'Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 212-217. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2000.107719
Staff, David M. ; Saeian, Kia ; Rochling, Fedja ; Narayanan, Subashini ; Kern, Mark ; Shaker, Reza ; Hogan, Walter J. / Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2000 ; Vol. 52, No. 2. pp. 212-217.
@article{c60deb66914942d0a142bac4c539882c,
title = "Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?",
abstract = "Background: The use of open access endoscopy is increasing. Its effect on the adequacy of patient informed consent, procedure acceptance and the impact on subsequent communication/transfer of procedure results to the patient have not been evaluated. The aim of our study was to compare the extent of preknowledge of procedures and test explanation, patient medical complexity, information transfer and overall patient satisfaction between a patient group referred for outpatient open access endoscopy versus a patient group from a gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialty clinic. Methods: Information was obtained from all patients presenting for outpatient upper and lower endoscopy by using a 1-page questionnaire. Patients from the two groups who had an outpatient upper/lower endoscopic procedure were contacted by phone after the procedure to obtain information with a standardized questionnaire. Results: The open access patients reported receiving significantly less information to help them identify the procedure (p < 0.01) and less explanation concerning the nature of the procedure than the group of patients referred from the subspecialty clinic (p < 0.005). There was no difference between the two groups in satisfaction scores for examinations performed under conscious sedation. For flexible sigmoidoscopy without sedation, however, the GI clinic patient group were more satisfied with their procedure. The majority of patients, regardless of access, were more likely to receive endoscopic results from a gastroenterologist than the referring physician. Furthermore, the patients in the GI clinic group who underwent colonoscopy felt significantly better at follow-up. Conclusions: Patients undergoing open access procedures are less likely to be properly informed about their endoscopic procedure. Our results indicate that with open access endoscopy, a defined mechanism needs to be in place for communication of endoscopic results to the patient.",
author = "Staff, {David M.} and Kia Saeian and Fedja Rochling and Subashini Narayanan and Mark Kern and Reza Shaker and Hogan, {Walter J.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1067/mge.2000.107719",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
pages = "212--217",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?

AU - Staff, David M.

AU - Saeian, Kia

AU - Rochling, Fedja

AU - Narayanan, Subashini

AU - Kern, Mark

AU - Shaker, Reza

AU - Hogan, Walter J.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Background: The use of open access endoscopy is increasing. Its effect on the adequacy of patient informed consent, procedure acceptance and the impact on subsequent communication/transfer of procedure results to the patient have not been evaluated. The aim of our study was to compare the extent of preknowledge of procedures and test explanation, patient medical complexity, information transfer and overall patient satisfaction between a patient group referred for outpatient open access endoscopy versus a patient group from a gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialty clinic. Methods: Information was obtained from all patients presenting for outpatient upper and lower endoscopy by using a 1-page questionnaire. Patients from the two groups who had an outpatient upper/lower endoscopic procedure were contacted by phone after the procedure to obtain information with a standardized questionnaire. Results: The open access patients reported receiving significantly less information to help them identify the procedure (p < 0.01) and less explanation concerning the nature of the procedure than the group of patients referred from the subspecialty clinic (p < 0.005). There was no difference between the two groups in satisfaction scores for examinations performed under conscious sedation. For flexible sigmoidoscopy without sedation, however, the GI clinic patient group were more satisfied with their procedure. The majority of patients, regardless of access, were more likely to receive endoscopic results from a gastroenterologist than the referring physician. Furthermore, the patients in the GI clinic group who underwent colonoscopy felt significantly better at follow-up. Conclusions: Patients undergoing open access procedures are less likely to be properly informed about their endoscopic procedure. Our results indicate that with open access endoscopy, a defined mechanism needs to be in place for communication of endoscopic results to the patient.

AB - Background: The use of open access endoscopy is increasing. Its effect on the adequacy of patient informed consent, procedure acceptance and the impact on subsequent communication/transfer of procedure results to the patient have not been evaluated. The aim of our study was to compare the extent of preknowledge of procedures and test explanation, patient medical complexity, information transfer and overall patient satisfaction between a patient group referred for outpatient open access endoscopy versus a patient group from a gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialty clinic. Methods: Information was obtained from all patients presenting for outpatient upper and lower endoscopy by using a 1-page questionnaire. Patients from the two groups who had an outpatient upper/lower endoscopic procedure were contacted by phone after the procedure to obtain information with a standardized questionnaire. Results: The open access patients reported receiving significantly less information to help them identify the procedure (p < 0.01) and less explanation concerning the nature of the procedure than the group of patients referred from the subspecialty clinic (p < 0.005). There was no difference between the two groups in satisfaction scores for examinations performed under conscious sedation. For flexible sigmoidoscopy without sedation, however, the GI clinic patient group were more satisfied with their procedure. The majority of patients, regardless of access, were more likely to receive endoscopic results from a gastroenterologist than the referring physician. Furthermore, the patients in the GI clinic group who underwent colonoscopy felt significantly better at follow-up. Conclusions: Patients undergoing open access procedures are less likely to be properly informed about their endoscopic procedure. Our results indicate that with open access endoscopy, a defined mechanism needs to be in place for communication of endoscopic results to the patient.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033838633&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033838633&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mge.2000.107719

DO - 10.1067/mge.2000.107719

M3 - Article

C2 - 10922093

AN - SCOPUS:0033838633

VL - 52

SP - 212

EP - 217

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 2

ER -