Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: The Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool (CEST).

GOALS: We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported experience measure for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, the Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool that captures relevant domains that influence the patient's experience and identify factors that shape satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience measures are used to capture specific quality aspects of health care services. GI endoscopic services are high-volume services, and there is a lack of specific, validated instruments to capture various domains that shape the patients' experience with routine clinical endoscopic services. STUDY: After an environmental scan and structured literature review, focus groups with patients were conducted to identify relevant factors influencing the patient experience with GI endoscopic services. After an initial validation in 101 patients undergoing routine GI endoscopies, the instrument was tested in 7800 patients. In addition, the influence of sociodemographic factors on global satisfaction was explored. RESULTS: The final version included 26 specific items plus 4 global ratings for preprocedure, experience on day of procedure, postprocedure care, and infrastructure. In addition, a global rating of the overall experience was included. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in older patients (P<0.001) but not influenced by gender, nationality, marital status, education, or employment status. Interestingly, during periods of coronavirus disease-19-related service interruptions, the Net Promoter Score was significantly reduced (P<0.0001) providing evidence for the responsiveness of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool is a valid measure for the patient experience with the various components of endoscopic services, allows for the identification of domains that impact on the patient experience and is a practical tool to compare patient satisfaction over time and across facilities.

Does the microbiome play a role in the pathogenesis of colonic diverticular disease? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of the microbiota in diverticulosis and diverticular disease is underexplored. This systematic review aimed to assess all literature pertaining to the microbiota and metabolome associations in asymptomatic diverticulosis, symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD), and diverticulitis pathophysiology. METHODS: Seven databases were searched for relevant studies published up to September 28, 2022. Data were screened in Covidence and extracted to Excel. Critical appraisal was undertaken using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for case/control studies. RESULTS: Of the 413 papers screened by title and abstract, 48 full-text papers were reviewed in detail with 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Overall, alpha and beta diversity were unchanged in diverticulosis; however, significant changes in alpha diversity were evident in diverticulitis. A similar Bacteroidetes to Firmicutes ratio compared with controls was reported across studies. The genus-level comparisons showed no relationship with diverticular disease. Butyrate-producing microbial species were decreased in abundance, suggesting a possible contribution to the pathogenesis of diverticular disease. Comamonas species was significantly increased in asymptomatic diverticulosis patients who later developed diverticulitis. Metabolome analysis reported significant differences in diverticulosis and SUDD, with upregulated uracil being the most consistent outcome in both. No significant differences were reported in the mycobiome. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is no convincing evidence of microbial dysbiosis in colonic diverticula to suggest that the microbiota contributes to the pathogenesis of asymptomatic diverticulosis, SUDD, or diverticular disease. Future research investigating microbiota involvement in colonic diverticula should consider an investigation of mucosa-associated microbial changes within the colonic diverticulum itself.

Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases. METHODS: A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs. RESULTS: In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing. CONCLUSIONS: Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.

In drug-refractory IBS, group CBT with interoceptive exposure improved symptoms and QoL at 13 wk.

SOURCE CITATION: Kikuchi S, Oe Y, Ito Y, et al. Group cognitive-behavioral therapy with interoceptive exposure for drug-refractory irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117:668-77. 35103022.