Consent for direct access endoscopy

Clarke, Anthony

doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05209.x

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Staff found similar results, arguing that the consent process for OAE is inadequate (17). Clarke examined the literature in 2007 and found that patients with OAE are less well informed, in part because of the referring physician not being as knowledgeable regarding endoscopy as a gastroenterologist (16). A study by Segarajasingam (21) found that the majority of adult patients were satisfied with the consent process for OAE occurring on the day of the procedure, but 20% of patients said that the most useful information regarding the procedure was not revealed until the day of endoscopy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Other studies, however, have found that 40% to 68% of patients who underwent OAE preferred TAE (9,15). In additional studies, some adults who underwent OAE were found to be less informed about their procedure and have poorer understanding of their indications for endoscopy (9,16,17). In 2012, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology linked OAE with decreased satisfaction in adult patients (18).…”

Section: What Is Newmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Satisfaction in Open Access Versus Traditional Referral for Upper Endoscopy in Children

Isaac

Persad

Huynh

et al. 2015

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: What Is Newmentioning

confidence: 99%

Satisfaction in Open Access Versus Traditional Referral for Upper Endoscopy in Children

Isaac

Persad

Huynh

et al. 2015

J. pediatr. gastroenterol. nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Written information should be made available and there should be opportunity to ask questions. No separate consent process is required but issues surrounding sedation should be addressed in the same way as procedure‐related risks and benefits before written consent is obtained 19 . Attempts to improve understanding of the procedure(s) by showing a video in fact may heighten anxiety levels and lead to the administration of higher doses of analgesia particularly in female patients 20 …”

Section: Consent For Intravenous Sedationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: Review and recommendations

Thomson

Andrew²,

Jones

2010

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sedation practices for endoscopy vary widely. The present review focuses on the commonly used regimens in endoscopic sedation and the associated risks and benefits together with the appropriate safety measures and monitoring practices. In addition, alternatives and additions to intravenous sedation are discussed. Personnel requirements for endoscopic sedation are reviewed; there is evidence presented to indicate that non-anesthetists can administer sedative drugs, including propofol, safely and efficaciously in selected cases. The development of endoscopic sedation as a multi-disciplinary field is highlighted with the formation of the Australian Tripartite Endoscopy Sedation Committee. This comprises representatives of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Possible future directions in this area are also briefly summarized.

show abstract

“…Although Direct Access Colonoscopy services are now common and deemed to be safe, there is varying evidence regarding its impact on time to diagnosis and treatment or patient outcomes and satisfaction. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] This pilot project aimed to assess whether the DACC was a safe and effective intervention to reduce wait-time to colonoscopy for eligible +FOBT referrals and the effect on meeting the 120-day recommendation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Broken Hill employed a Clinical Nurse Consultant to manage and assess DACC patients; gastroenterologists were also available to consult on DACC referrals as needed. Although Direct Access Colonoscopy services are now common and deemed to be safe, there is varying evidence regarding its impact on time to diagnosis and treatment or patient outcomes and satisfaction …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic: Improving time to colonoscopy for eligible positive faecal occult blood test patients in Broken Hill NSW

Whitelaw

Hammond

Cumming

et al. 2019

Australian J Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This pilot project aimed to assess whether the Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic is an effective and safe model to reduce the time from a positive faecal occult blood test referral to a gastroenterologist‐performed colonoscopy, and its effect on meeting the 120‐day recommendation. Design Before/after clinical practice and patient file audit. Setting Broken Hill Health Service. Participants De‐identified data from all positive faecal occult blood test colonoscopies performed in the Broken Hill Health Service in October 2016‐January 2017 (Pre‐Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic) and October 2017‐January 2018 (Post‐Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic). Main outcome measures Variables included referral date, indication, initial appointment date, colonoscopy date, colonoscopy finding, bowel preparation and adverse events. Colonoscopies indicated by positive faecal occult blood test results were the focus. Results The nurse‐consulted Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic cohort (n = 22) had a significant 139‐day reduction from positive faecal occult blood test referral to colonoscopy compared to the Pre‐Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic cohort. All Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic patients met the new 120‐day recommendation for wait‐time from referral to colonoscopy. Following the introduction of the Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic, no immediate adverse events were documented for patients using either the conventional or Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic pathways. Conclusions The Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic offers a safe and effective intervention that reduces wait‐time to colonoscopy in eligible patients with positive faecal occult blood test within the recommended 120 days. Further research is recommended, but Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic has the potential to improve timely access to colonoscopy services and outcomes for all positive faecal occult blood test patients.

show abstract

Consent for direct access endoscopy

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Satisfaction in Open Access Versus Traditional Referral for Upper Endoscopy in Children

Satisfaction in Open Access Versus Traditional Referral for Upper Endoscopy in Children

Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: Review and recommendations

The Direct Access Colonoscopy Clinic: Improving time to colonoscopy for eligible positive faecal occult blood test patients in Broken Hill NSW

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About