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

D. Staff, K. Saeian, F. Rochling, S. Narayanan, M. Kern, R. Shaker, W. Hogan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Open access (open) endoscopy is becoming increasingly utilized; its effect on the patient's informed consent and subsequent acquisition of endoscopic results has not been fully investigated. Aims: We performed a prospective comparison study with a follow-up telephone survey between patients referred for open endoscopy and patients referred from a GI clinic (clinic) concerning prior knowledge of the planned procedure, satisfaction and results of their procedure. Methods: 526 patients presenting for outpatient endoscopy (open 115 pts., clinic 350 pts.) were surveyed with a standard questionnaire for their knowledge about the impending procedure (type of endoscopy; prior test explanation) and medication usage. Subsequently, 185 patients (35%) were eventually contacted by telephone (open 72 pts.; clinic 113 pts.) within 90 days to obtain their satisfaction rating and knowledge of the endoscopic results. Results: Endo Information Transfer: Open Access vs Conventional Clinic Procedures Patient Unawareness Group Pt. # EGD Colon FFS Test type unknown No Explanation Open 175 52 75 48 43 pts (25%) 27 pts (16%) Clinic 350 181 94 75 51 pts (15%)*16 pts (5%)***p = 0.009**p = <0.001 More open patients were unable to identify their scheduled procedure than clinic patients (25% vs 15%, p=0.009) and more open patients did not receive adequate prior explanation of the endoscopy compared to clinic patients (16% vs 5%, p=<0.001). The majority of patients in both groups received procedure results from a gastroenterologist regardless of access status (GI 67% vs PMD 18% p<.001). There was no difference in reported medication usage and interestingly no significant difference in reported patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Patients undergoing open access endoscopic procedures are more often unaware of the type and nature of their exam than patients referred from a GI clinic. These findings reinforce the need for better screening and methods of patient instruction. Regardless of access, the majority of results were reported to the patient by the gastroenterologist which raises the issue of responsibility to relay follow-up information to open access patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)AB60
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume47
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1 1998

Fingerprint

Endoscopy
Telephone
Access to Information
Informed Consent
Patient Satisfaction
Colon
Outpatients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Staff, D., Saeian, K., Rochling, F., Narayanan, S., Kern, M., Shaker, R., & Hogan, W. (1998). Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient? Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 47(4), AB60.

Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient? / Staff, D.; Saeian, K.; Rochling, F.; Narayanan, S.; Kern, M.; Shaker, R.; Hogan, W.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 47, No. 4, 01.12.1998, p. AB60.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Staff, D, Saeian, K, Rochling, F, Narayanan, S, Kern, M, Shaker, R & Hogan, W 1998, 'Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. AB60.
Staff D, Saeian K, Rochling F, Narayanan S, Kern M, Shaker R et al. Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient? Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1998 Dec 1;47(4):AB60.
Staff, D. ; Saeian, K. ; Rochling, F. ; Narayanan, S. ; Kern, M. ; Shaker, R. ; Hogan, W. / Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1998 ; Vol. 47, No. 4. pp. AB60.
@article{9ff1b47b443e4d1d89161272455ead52,
title = "Does open access endoscopy close the door to an adequately informed patient?",
abstract = "Open access (open) endoscopy is becoming increasingly utilized; its effect on the patient's informed consent and subsequent acquisition of endoscopic results has not been fully investigated. Aims: We performed a prospective comparison study with a follow-up telephone survey between patients referred for open endoscopy and patients referred from a GI clinic (clinic) concerning prior knowledge of the planned procedure, satisfaction and results of their procedure. Methods: 526 patients presenting for outpatient endoscopy (open 115 pts., clinic 350 pts.) were surveyed with a standard questionnaire for their knowledge about the impending procedure (type of endoscopy; prior test explanation) and medication usage. Subsequently, 185 patients (35{\%}) were eventually contacted by telephone (open 72 pts.; clinic 113 pts.) within 90 days to obtain their satisfaction rating and knowledge of the endoscopic results. Results: Endo Information Transfer: Open Access vs Conventional Clinic Procedures Patient Unawareness Group Pt. # EGD Colon FFS Test type unknown No Explanation Open 175 52 75 48 43 pts (25{\%}) 27 pts (16{\%}) Clinic 350 181 94 75 51 pts (15{\%})*16 pts (5{\%})***p = 0.009**p = <0.001 More open patients were unable to identify their scheduled procedure than clinic patients (25{\%} vs 15{\%}, p=0.009) and more open patients did not receive adequate prior explanation of the endoscopy compared to clinic patients (16{\%} vs 5{\%}, p=<0.001). The majority of patients in both groups received procedure results from a gastroenterologist regardless of access status (GI 67{\%} vs PMD 18{\%} p<.001). There was no difference in reported medication usage and interestingly no significant difference in reported patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Patients undergoing open access endoscopic procedures are more often unaware of the type and nature of their exam than patients referred from a GI clinic. These findings reinforce the need for better screening and methods of patient instruction. Regardless of access, the majority of results were reported to the patient by the gastroenterologist which raises the issue of responsibility to relay follow-up information to open access patients.",
author = "D. Staff and K. Saeian and F. Rochling and S. Narayanan and M. Kern and R. Shaker and W. Hogan",
year = "1998",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "AB60",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

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

AU - Staff, D.

AU - Saeian, K.

AU - Rochling, F.

AU - Narayanan, S.

AU - Kern, M.

AU - Shaker, R.

AU - Hogan, W.

PY - 1998/12/1

Y1 - 1998/12/1

N2 - Open access (open) endoscopy is becoming increasingly utilized; its effect on the patient's informed consent and subsequent acquisition of endoscopic results has not been fully investigated. Aims: We performed a prospective comparison study with a follow-up telephone survey between patients referred for open endoscopy and patients referred from a GI clinic (clinic) concerning prior knowledge of the planned procedure, satisfaction and results of their procedure. Methods: 526 patients presenting for outpatient endoscopy (open 115 pts., clinic 350 pts.) were surveyed with a standard questionnaire for their knowledge about the impending procedure (type of endoscopy; prior test explanation) and medication usage. Subsequently, 185 patients (35%) were eventually contacted by telephone (open 72 pts.; clinic 113 pts.) within 90 days to obtain their satisfaction rating and knowledge of the endoscopic results. Results: Endo Information Transfer: Open Access vs Conventional Clinic Procedures Patient Unawareness Group Pt. # EGD Colon FFS Test type unknown No Explanation Open 175 52 75 48 43 pts (25%) 27 pts (16%) Clinic 350 181 94 75 51 pts (15%)*16 pts (5%)***p = 0.009**p = <0.001 More open patients were unable to identify their scheduled procedure than clinic patients (25% vs 15%, p=0.009) and more open patients did not receive adequate prior explanation of the endoscopy compared to clinic patients (16% vs 5%, p=<0.001). The majority of patients in both groups received procedure results from a gastroenterologist regardless of access status (GI 67% vs PMD 18% p<.001). There was no difference in reported medication usage and interestingly no significant difference in reported patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Patients undergoing open access endoscopic procedures are more often unaware of the type and nature of their exam than patients referred from a GI clinic. These findings reinforce the need for better screening and methods of patient instruction. Regardless of access, the majority of results were reported to the patient by the gastroenterologist which raises the issue of responsibility to relay follow-up information to open access patients.

AB - Open access (open) endoscopy is becoming increasingly utilized; its effect on the patient's informed consent and subsequent acquisition of endoscopic results has not been fully investigated. Aims: We performed a prospective comparison study with a follow-up telephone survey between patients referred for open endoscopy and patients referred from a GI clinic (clinic) concerning prior knowledge of the planned procedure, satisfaction and results of their procedure. Methods: 526 patients presenting for outpatient endoscopy (open 115 pts., clinic 350 pts.) were surveyed with a standard questionnaire for their knowledge about the impending procedure (type of endoscopy; prior test explanation) and medication usage. Subsequently, 185 patients (35%) were eventually contacted by telephone (open 72 pts.; clinic 113 pts.) within 90 days to obtain their satisfaction rating and knowledge of the endoscopic results. Results: Endo Information Transfer: Open Access vs Conventional Clinic Procedures Patient Unawareness Group Pt. # EGD Colon FFS Test type unknown No Explanation Open 175 52 75 48 43 pts (25%) 27 pts (16%) Clinic 350 181 94 75 51 pts (15%)*16 pts (5%)***p = 0.009**p = <0.001 More open patients were unable to identify their scheduled procedure than clinic patients (25% vs 15%, p=0.009) and more open patients did not receive adequate prior explanation of the endoscopy compared to clinic patients (16% vs 5%, p=<0.001). The majority of patients in both groups received procedure results from a gastroenterologist regardless of access status (GI 67% vs PMD 18% p<.001). There was no difference in reported medication usage and interestingly no significant difference in reported patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Patients undergoing open access endoscopic procedures are more often unaware of the type and nature of their exam than patients referred from a GI clinic. These findings reinforce the need for better screening and methods of patient instruction. Regardless of access, the majority of results were reported to the patient by the gastroenterologist which raises the issue of responsibility to relay follow-up information to open access patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26444531747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26444531747&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:26444531747

VL - 47

SP - AB60

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -