Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature

Brown, Sally; Bevan, Roisin; Rubin, Greg; Nixon, Catherine; Dunn, Simon; Panter, Simon; Rees, Colin

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.047

Cited by 38 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A metanarrative literature (systematic review incorporating qualitative data) review was performed by the lead authors prior to establishment of this group. [7] The evidence from this review was used as the basis for developing the statements. The metanarrative methodology, along with the details of search terms and results are detailed in the published review and are not repeated here.…”

Section: Metanarrative Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The metanarrative methodology, along with the details of search terms and results are detailed in the published review and are not repeated here. [7] A metanarrative search was chosen rather than a traditional systematic review, as this methodology allows capture of all non-quantitative as well as quantitative data, as patient experience tends to be examined using predominantly qualitative methods. The same search terms used in the metanarrative review were re-run from 2014 to 2016 to identify papers published after publication of the metanarrative review.…”

Section: Metanarrative Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on patient experience of GI endoscopy

Rees

Trebble

Wagner

et al. 2019

Gut

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This position statement provides a framework on patient experience of gastrointestinal endoscopy, with recommendations and suggestions for practice to ensure high quality patient experience. This area is not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines or position statements and is an important addition to this field. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout. A metanarrative review of the literature (systematic review plus qualitative data) on patient experience of GI endoscopy was performed and was used as the basis for development of statements by the writing subgroup of the Guideline Development Group (GDG). Proposed statements were evaluated by each member of the GDG (consisting of patient representatives, gastroenterologists, surgeons, a nurse endoscopist, an endoscopy nurse, a health psychologist and a public health research officer) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with 80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached, a Modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. Finalised Statements and evidence quality were evaluated at a GDG round table meeting. The GRADE tool was used to assess strength of recommendations and evidence. 50 statements are included, covering 10 key domains, including definitions and terms, patient experience key principles, how and what information is offered to patients, how experience is measured, options available to improve patient experience, sedation practice, pre-assessment, endoscopy under difficult or complex circumstances, and departmental elements.

show abstract

Section: Metanarrative Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Metanarrative Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on patient experience of GI endoscopy

Rees

Trebble

Wagner

et al. 2019

Gut

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A prospective study of 101 cases showed a 96% immediate haemostasis rate, with rebleed rates of 26% and 33% at 8 and 10 days respectively. 1 We introduced Hemospray to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHT) in January 2014. Here we compare our first 3 years of real-world usage against that reported in the literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rebleed rates are comparable to those reported previously. 1 It worth noting that this study does not include Hemospray application following elective procedures which is relatively common. Hemospray is predictor of mortality (54%), probably reflecting the high risk groups Hemospray is used in.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PTH-023 Developing patient reported experience measures for gi endoscopy: results of patient interviews

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPatient experience is increasingly recognised as a key measure of quality of care. Ensuring positive experience is important to patients and fundamental in maximising participation in screening programmes and re-attendance for surveillance procedures. Current measures of patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy are clinician derived.1Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should be patient derived and incorporate pre-and post-procedure experience. We aimed to identify themes considered as important to patients undergoing GI procedures as a basis for developing PREMs.MethodPatients who had undergone upper or lower GI investigations (gastroscopy, colonoscopy and CT pneumocolon) were invited to attend for a semi-structured interview. 32 interviewees were purposefully sampled to ensure diversity. Interviews were conducted by a research fellow trained in qualitative methods and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Recruitment continued until saturation was achieved. Analysis used qualitative thematic methods focusing on anticipated and emergent themes, using constant comparison to ensure that all perspectives were included in the explanation of the data.Results168 patients were approached. 32 interviews were completed (12 gastroscopy, 10 colonoscopy and 10 CT pneumocolon), with a male:female ratio of 18:14. The time interval from examination to procedure ranged from 5 to 44 days. Mean age was 63.1 years (SD 11.5)The interviews provided an in-depth understanding of patient experience of GI procedures. 6 over-arching and inter-linking themes emerged across all procedures; anxiety, expectations, choice/control, communication/information, comfort and embarrassment/dignity. Relation of themes was seen e.g. if the procedure appointment was sooner than expected, patients were anxious about the potential outcome. Choice was important in terms of appointment, endoscopist and choice of pre-medication, however it was highly individualised. Communication prepared patients and managed expectations, with one patient describing poor endoscopist communication affecting the whole experience. Patients described embarrassment related to changing and waiting areas; sensitive nature of the test; exposure and physical reaction. Discomfort during the procedure was attributed to instrument and air insertion.ConclusionDespite heterogeneity between procedures consistent themes related to patient experience emerged. This work will be used to develop PREMs for GI Endoscopy.Reference. Brown S, et al. Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature. Gastrointest Endosc2015;81(5):1130–40Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

show abstract

Quality and Efficiency in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Units

Day

Belson

Gellad

2018

Clinical Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature

Cited by 38 publications

References 52 publications

British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on patient experience of GI endoscopy

British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on patient experience of GI endoscopy

PTH-023 Developing patient reported experience measures for gi endoscopy: results of patient interviews

Quality and Efficiency in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Units

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About