Effectiveness of digital feedback on patient experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy: a randomized health services study

Abstract

Background and study aims European guidelines (ESGE) recommend measuring patient experience and 30-day complication rate after colonoscopy. We compared digital and paper-based feedback on patients’ experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy.

Patients and methods Screenees attending for primary screening colonoscopies in two centers from September 2015 to December 2016 were randomized (1:1) to an intervention arm (choice of feedback method) or control arm (routine paper-based feedback). Participants in the intervention arm could choose preferred feedback method (paper-based, automated telephone or online survey) and were contacted by automated telephone 30 days after colonoscopy to assess complications. Control group participants self-reported complications. Primary and secondary endpoints were response rates to feedback and complications questionnaire, respectively.

Results There were 1,281 and 1,260 participants in the intervention and control arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in response rate between study groups (64.8 % vs 61.5 %; P = 0.08). Free choice of feedback improved response for participants identified as poor responders: younger than 60 years (60.8 % vs 54.7 %; P = 0.031), male (64.0 % vs 58.6 %; P = 0.045) and in small non-public center (56.2 % vs 42.5 %; P = 0.043).

In the intervention arm, 1,168 participants (91.2 %) answered the phone call concerning complications. A total of 79 participants (6.2 %) reported complications, of which two (0.2 %) were verified by telephone as clinically relevant. No complications were self-reported in the control group.

Conclusion The overall response rate was not significantly improved with digital feedback, yet the technology yielded significant improvement in participants defined as poor responders. Our study demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of digital patient feedback about complications after colonoscopy.

• References

• 1 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
• 2 Kaminski MF, Kraszewska E, Rupinski M. et al. Design of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program: a randomized health services study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1144-1150
• 3 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G. et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
• 4 Hoff G, de Lange T, Bretthauer M. et al. Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 745-753
• 5 Hoff G, Moritz V, Bretthauer M. et al. Incontinence after colonoscopy--an unrecognized and preventable problem. A cross-sectional study from the Gastronet quality assurance program. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 349-353
• 6 Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK. et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy - a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476-481
• 7 Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S. et al. Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 362-369
• 8 Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S. et al. Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 639-646
• 9 Hoff G, Ottestad PM, Skaflotten SR. et al. Quality assurance as an integrated part of the electronic medical record - a prototype applied for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 1259-1265
• 10 Bugajski M, Wieszczy P, Hoff G. et al. Modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after screening colonoscopy. Gut 2018; 67: 1958-1964
• 11 National Statistical Office of Poland. www.stat.gov.pl Access: 07.06.2018
• 12 Hakama M, Malila N, Dillner J. Randomised health services studies. Int J Cancer 2012; 131: 2898-2902
• 13 Hsieh C, Yun D, Bhatia AC. et al. Patient perception on the usage of smartphones for medical photography and for reference in dermatology. Dermatol Surg 2015; 41: 149-154
• 14 Posadzki P, Mastellos N, Ryan R. et al. Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 12: CD009921
• 15 National Statistical Office of Poland. Available at www.stat.gov.pl Accessed July 6, 2018
• 16 Israel S. How social policies can improve financial accessibility of healthcare: a multi-level analysis of unmet medical need in European countries. Int J Equity Health 2016; 15: 41
• 17 Barron E, Clark R, Hewings R. et al. Progress of the Healthier You: NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme: referrals, uptake and participant characteristics. Diabet Med 2018; 35: 513-518
• 18 Velardo C, Shah SA, Gibson O. et al. Digital health system for personalised COPD long-term management. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17: 19
• 19 Schramm W. Digital diabetes self-management: a trilateral serial. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12: 709-711
• 20 Lenaert B, Colombi M, van Heugten C. et al. Exploring the feasibility and usability of the experience sampling method to examine the daily lives of patients with acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2017; 1-13
• 21 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Lalor EA. et al. A prospective audit of patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale: a cohort of 1,187 patients. Can J Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 607-613
• 22 Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, Korfage IJ. et al. Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 462-472
• 23 Skovlund E, Bretthauer M, Grotmol T. et al. Sensitivity of pain rating scales in an endoscopy trial. Clin J Pain 2005; 21: 292-296
• 24 Breivik EK, Bjornsson GA, Skovlund E. A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data. Clin J Pain 2000; 16: 22-28
• 25 Skovlund E, Flaten O. Response measures in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 1995; 15: 519-522 , discussion 450-511
• 26 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
• 27 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT. et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
• 28 Fisher DA, Maple JT. Committee ASoP. et al. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 745-752
• 29 Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C. et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 880-886
• 30 Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ. et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1899-1906 , 1906 e1891
• 31 Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A. et al. Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 813-818
• 32 Saraste D, Martling A, Nilsson PJ. et al. Complications after colonoscopy and surgery in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. J Med Screen 2016; 23: 135-140