Digital recording and documentation of endoscopic procedures: physicians’ practice and perspectives

Abstract

Background In recent years, it has become increasingly prevalent internationally to record and archive digital recordings of endoscopic procedures. This emerging documentation tool raises weighty educational, ethical and legal issues – which are viewed as both deterrents and incentives to its adoption. We conducted a survey study aimed at evaluating the use of DRD in endoscopic procedures, to examine physicians’ support of this practice and to map the considerations weighed by physicians when deciding whether or not to support a more extensive use of DRD. Methods Israeli physicians from specialties that employ endoscopic technics were surveyed anonymously for demographic background, existence and use of recording equipment, existence of institutional guidelines regarding DRD, and self-ranking (on a scale from 1 to 7) of personal attitudes regarding DRD. Results 322 physicians were surveyed. 84% reported performing routine endoscopic procedures, 78% had the required equipment for digital recording, and 64% of them stated that they never or only rarely actually recorded the procedure. General surgeons had the second highest rate of DRD equipment (96.5%) but the lowest rates of DRD practice (17.5%). The average ranking of support of DRD by all participants was 5.07 ± 1.9, indicating a moderately high level of support. Significant positive correlation exists between actual DRD rates and average support of DRD ( p < 0.001). Based on mediation models, for all specialties and with no exceptions, having routine recording guidelines and positive support of DRD were found to increase the probability of actual recording. Being a surgeon or an urologist negatively correlated with support of DRD, and decreased actual recording rates. The argument “Recording might cause more lawsuits” was ranked significantly higher than all other arguments against DRD ( p < 0.001), and “Recording could aid teaching of interns” was ranked higher than all other arguments in favor of DRD ( p < 0.001). Conclusions While DRD facilities and equipment are fairly widespread in Israel, the actual recording rate is generally low and varies among specialties. Having institutional guidelines requiring routine recording and a positive personal support of DRD correlated with actual DRD rates, with general surgeons being markedly less supportive of DRD and having the lowest actual recording rates. Physicians in all specialties were very much concerned about DRD’s potential to enhance lawsuits, and this greatly influenced their use of DRD. These findings should be addressed by educational efforts, centering on professionals from reluctant specialties, as well as by the issuing of both professional and institutional guidelines endorsing DRD as well as requiring it where applicable. Electronic supplementary material The online version of...

Frugal digitization of analog video endoscopic medical records in a Kenyan rural medical center

“…It has been demonstrated that in some regions, such as Israel, despite having high access to DRD equipment, the actual recording rates remain low among doctors (4). Factors limiting the widespread adoption of endoscopic video recording include (i) doctors' concern about the potential risk of lawsuits, (ii) privacy concerns from both the patients and professionals, and (iii) lack of a clearly defined legal framework for video recording in medical practice (4,5).…”

“…The described benefits of video recordings include (i) improving quality, efficiency, and safety of care, (ii) improving clinical skills of healthcare providers, (iii) medical education, and (iv) improved patient follow-ups (3,4,(6)(7)(8). Rural hospitals lack access to resources to support the purchase of new, often expensive digitized medical equipment or DRD devices.…”

Assessing Competency in Thoracentesis: Lights, Camera, Action!

“…Potential risks to patients’ rights have been examined and organized into six categories: informed consent policies, informed consent procedures, recorded medical errors, secondary use of recordings, collateral patient information, and public trust issues ( 11 ). An additional concern may be the medicolegal aspects in the event of a complication ( 12 ). The authors note that their hospital consent form included consent for videotaping for training and education purposes.…”