Birgitte Seip

Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: A randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy

Objective. Use of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) during colonoscopy has the potential to ease caecal intubation and patient discomfort and to reduce dependence on sedation and/or analgesics (SAs). However, pain reduction by using MEI has not been demonstrated so far, probably because of the liberal use of SAs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of MEI on caecal intubation and patient pain during unsedated colonoscopy performed by experienced and inexperienced colonoscopists. Material and methods. A consecutive series of outpatients referred for colonoscopy were randomly allocated to examination with (imager group) or without (standard group) the use of MEI. Patients agreeing to SAs being given only on demand were included in the study. End-points were caecal intubation and pain, the latter to be graded by category on a form to be completed on the day after the examination. Results. The proportion of colonoscopies performed without SAs was similar when comparing imager and standard groups and experienced with inexperienced colonoscopists; altogether 367(88%) out of 419 colonoscopies. The caecal intubation rate was higher in the imager group (190/212 (90%)) than in the standard group (153/207(74%)) (p<0.001), both collectively and separately for experienced and inexperienced colonoscopists. A pain-reducing effect of MEI was shown only when performed by experienced colonoscopists, with severe pain in 10/137 patients (7.3%) in the imager group and 21/132 patients (16%) in the standard group (p=0.03). Conclusions. In colonoscopy without the routine use of SAs, MEI significantly improves the caecum intubation rate and reduces pain during the procedure.

Patients' satisfaction: An important factor in quality control of gastroscopies

Objective. Although oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) are associated with few medical complications, substantial pre-procedural anxiety and discomfort during the procedure have been reported. The aims of the present study were to evaluate OGD-related discomfort assessed by the patient and to identify the possibilities for improvement. Material and methods. All outpatients undergoing OGDs at a single centre during 2004 were eligible for the study. On site, the endoscopy team completed a questionnaire on age of patients, gender and the use of sedation/anaesthesia. After the examination, the patients were given a questionnaire focusing on discomfort during and after the examination. The questionnaire was to be completed at home the following day and returned in a prepaid envelope. Results. During the study period, 1283 examinations were registered, giving 92% coverage of OGDs. The patient response rate was 80%. Patients’ mean age was 55 years, and 45% were men. The sedation rate was 7.3%. None or only slight discomfort was experienced by 68% of the patients and severe discomfort by 14%. In patients, the odds ratio (OR) for experiencing moderate or severe discomfort decreased with increasing age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95–0.97, p<0.001). There were significant differences in patient discomfort depending on the level of experience of the endoscopists. Conclusions. The majority of patients reported no or only slight discomfort during the examination, but as many as 32% did not. Increased use of sedation in selected patients is recommended. Our quality assurance program included a limited number of variables for registration, with satisfactory compliance by endoscopists and patients.

Risk stratification to predict pain during unsedated colonoscopy: results of a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Colonoscopy without sedation has several advantages over sedated colonoscopy, but a considerable proportion of patients experience pain. The aim of this study was to develop a risk stratification model of pre-examination risk factors to enable targeted sedation during colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between October 2011 and January 2012, consecutive outpatients who were willing to start colonoscopy without sedation at 11 Norwegian centers were prospectively recruited. Patients recorded pain on a validated 4-point scale (none, slight, moderate, or severe pain). Potential risk factors for a painful procedure (defined as moderate or severe pain) were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analyses, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was calculated to assess the discriminatory ability of the derived model. RESULTS A total of 1198 patients (635 men and 563 women) were included. Seven independent, pre-procedural risk factors for patient pain were identified: female sex, age < 40 years, previous abdominal surgery, abdominal pain as indication for colonoscopy, anticipation of pain, previous painful colonoscopy, and a history of diverticulitis. In patients with 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 risk factors, a painful colonoscopy was experienced by 35 %, 43 %, 52 %, and 63 % of women and 18 %, 24 %, 35 %, and 63 % of men, respectively. The model showed modest discrimination abilities (AUROC = 0.69). CONCLUSION Female sex was a strong risk factor for pain during colonoscopy, and sedation or analgesia should be considered for all women prior to colonoscopy. For male patients, the presence of multiple risk factors should encourage the endoscopist to offer sedation.

Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme

Abstract Objective. An important challenge of any quality assurance (QA) programme is to maintain interest among participants to ensure high data quality over time. The primary aim of this study was to identify factors associated with endoscopist compliance with the Norwegian QA programme for colonoscopies (Gastronet). Material and methods. The Gastronet registration tools are an endoscopy report form to be filled in directly after the procedure by the endoscopist, and a satisfaction questionnaire to be filled in by the patient on the day after the examination. During the study period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006, endoscopist compliance was measured by assessing patient report coverage, defined as the percentage of patient satisfaction questionnaires received by the Gastronet secretariat divided by the total number of colonoscopy reports registered by the individual endoscopists during the study period. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to identify individual factors related to patient report coverage. Results. Eighty-eight endoscopists from 10 hospitals contributed a total of 16,149 colonoscopies. Overall patient report coverage decreased from 87% in 2004 to 80% in 2006. A low patient report coverage was associated with time since the registrations started [odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97–0.98; P < 0.001], use of sedation (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61–0.76; P < 0.001), and incomplete colonoscopy (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.54–0.76; P < 0.001). Conclusions. Decreasing compliance with registration over time may compromise data quality and the validity of the results. Lower coverage of patients reports (presumably for the most difficult examinations) may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding colonoscopy performance.

Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway

Background and aims Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important in healthcare. European guidelines have recommended inclusion of patient feedback to capture adverse events due to colonoscopy, but this is rarely implemented. Methods The Norwegian Quality Assurance network for endoscopy (Gastronet) collects patient-reported outcome for colonoscopies. Free-text comments on patient reports from January to December 2015 were characterized as positive or negative. All negative free-text comments were scrutinized for information that might suggest colonoscopy-related adverse events. We identified severe adverse events with and without admission to hospital. Results We included 16 552 outpatient colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals. A total of 11 248 procedures (68 %) were accompanied by a patient feedback report, of which 2628 (23 %) had free-text comments (2196 [20 %] characterized as positive and 432 [3.8 %] as negative). These negative free texts on patient reports revealed 15 post-colonoscopy hospital admissions due to adverse events that had not been registered in the colonoscopy report. This increased the number of hospital admissions caused by adverse events from 3 (0.03 %) to 18 (0.16 %). In addition, there were 14 patient reports of severe events without hospital admission. Therefore, a total of 29 severe adverse events reported by patients were missed by conventional documentation in the colonoscopy form. Conclusion It is feasible to implement patient feedback as routine reporting to capture the full picture of colonoscopy-related adverse events. Some patients experience significant complications that are not recorded through any registries. Patient feedback forms should be tailored to capture adverse events after colonoscopy that are otherwise not easily disclosed.

First quality score for referral letters in gastroenterology—a validation study

Objective To create and validate an objective and reliable score to assess referral quality in gastroenterology. Design An observational multicentre study. Setting and participants 25 gastroenterologists participated in selecting variables for a Thirty Point Score (TPS) for quality assessment of referrals to gastroenterology specialist healthcare for 9 common indications. From May to September 2014, 7 hospitals from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority participated in collecting and scoring 327 referrals to a gastroenterologist. Main outcome measure Correlation between the TPS and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for referral quality. Results The 327 referrals had an average TPS of 13.2 (range 1–25) and an average VAS of 4.7 (range 0.2–9.5). The reliability of the score was excellent, with an intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.87 and inter-rater ICC of 0.91. The overall correlation between the TPS and the VAS was moderate (r=0.42), and ranged from fair to substantial for the various indications. Mean agreement was good (ICC=0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.57)), ranging from poor to good. Conclusions The TPS is reliable, objective and shows good agreement with the subjective VAS. The score may be a useful tool for assessing referral quality in gastroenterology, particularly important when evaluating the effect of interventions to improve referral quality.

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Primary Clostridium difficile Infection

Fecal Microbiota for Clostridium difficile Clostridium difficile is the leading cause of nosocomial infectious diarrhea. New treatment strategies are needed. In this letter, preliminary data on fecal therapy as primary treatment are assessed.

Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy

Background There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data. Objective The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet. Methods This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm. Results The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86–1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94–1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99–1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period. Conclusions Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged – independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

Endoscopy assistants influence the quality of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy performance varies between endoscopists, but little is known about the impact of endoscopy assistants on key performance indicators. We used a large prospective colonoscopy quality database to perform an exploratory study to evaluate differences in selected quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. METHODS All colonoscopies reported to the Norwegian colonoscopy quality assurance register Gastronet can be used to trace individual endoscopy assistants. We analyzed key quality indicators (cecum intubation rate, polyp detection rate, colonoscopies rated as severely painful, colonoscopies with sedation or analgesia, and satisfaction with information) for colonoscopies performed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. Differences between individual assistants were analyzed by fitting multivariable logistic regression models, with the best performing assistant at each participating hospital as reference. All models were adjusted for the endoscopist. RESULTS 63 endoscopy assistants from 12 hospitals assisted in 15 365 colonoscopies. Compared with their top performing peers from the same hospital, one assistant was associated with cecum intubation failure, four with poor polyp detection, nine with painful colonoscopy, 16 with administration of sedation or analgesics during colonoscopy, and three with patient dissatisfaction about information given relating to the colonoscopy. The number of procedures during the study period or lifetime experience as an endoscopy assistant were not associated with any quality indicator. CONCLUSION In this exploratory study, there was little variation on important colonoscopy quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. However, there were differences among assistants that may be clinically important. Endoscopy assistants should be subject to quality surveillance similarly to endoscopists.