Computer-based patient education is non-inferior to nurse counselling prior to colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal patient education prior to colonoscopy improves adherence to instructions for bowel preparation and leads to cleaner colons. We developed computer-based education (CBE) supported by video and 3 D animations. We hypothesized that CBE could replace nurse counselling without loss of bowel preparation quality during colonoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcome measures were: sickness absence for outpatient clinic visits; patient anxiety/satisfaction scores; and information recall. We included patients in four endoscopy units (rural, urban, and tertiary). RESULTS: We screened 1035 eligible patients and randomized 845. After evaluation, 684 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) group. Subsequently, 497 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, 217 in the nurse counselling and 280 in the CBE group. Baseline characteristics were similarly distributed among the groups. On per-protocol analysis, adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 93.2 % (261/280) of CBE patients, which was non-inferior to nurse-counselled patients (94.0 %; 204/217), with a difference of -0.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] -5.1 % to 3.5 %). Non-inferiority was confirmed in the ITT population. Sickness absence was significantly more frequent in nurse-counselled patients (28.0 % vs. 4.8 %). In CBE patients, 21.5 % needed additional information, with 3.0 % needing an extra outpatient visit. CONCLUSION: CBE is non-inferior to nurse counselling in terms of bowel preparation during colonoscopy, with lower patient sickness leave. CBE may serve as an efficient educational tool to inform patients before colonoscopy in routine clinical practice.

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-guided versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided technique for pancreatic duct cannulation in patients with pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Stenosis of the pancreaticojejunostomy is a well-known long-term complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy. Traditionally, the endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided intervention has emerged as an alternative, but the success rate and adverse event rate of both treatment modalities are poorly known. We aimed to compare the outcome data of both interventions. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using the Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases in order to summarize the available data regarding efficacy and complications of ERP- and EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and compare these outcome data using uniform outcome measures in a multilevel logistic model. RESULTS : 13 studies were included, involving 77 patients who underwent ERP-guided drainage, 145 who underwent EUS-guided drainage, and 12 patients who underwent both modalities. An EUS-guided approach was significantly superior to an ERP-guided approach with regard to pancreatic duct opacification (87 % vs. 30 %; P < 0.001), cannulation success (79 % vs. 26 %; P < 0.001), and stent placement (72 % vs. 20 %; P < 0.001). An EUS-guided approach also appeared superior with regard to clinical outcomes such a pain resolution. The adverse event rate between the two treatment modalities could not be compared due to insufficient data. All included studies were found to be of low quality. CONCLUSION: Based on limited available data, EUS-guided PD intervention appears superior to ERP-guided PD intervention.

Virtual reality distraction for patients to relieve pain and discomfort during colonoscopy.

Background and study aims Colonoscopy is an invasive procedure that may cause patients pain and discomfort. Routine use of sedation, while effective, is expensive and requires logistical planning. Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive, three-dimensional experiences that distract the attention and might comfort patients. We performed a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of VR distraction during colonoscopy. Patients and methods Adults referred for colonoscopy were considered for inclusion and divided over two groups: with and without VR glasses. The main outcome was patient acceptance of wearing VR glasses during colonoscopy without compromising the technical success of the procedure. Secondary outcomes were patient comfort, pain, and anxiety before, during and after the procedure, using validated patient questionnaires. Patient comments were collected through a qualitative interview. Results We included 19 patients, 10 of whom were offered VR glasses. All patients accepted VR glasses without prolonging procedural time. No disadvantages of the VR glasses were reported in terms of communication or change of position of the patient. We found that patient comfort, pain, anxiety, and satisfaction in relation to the procedure were similar in both groups. Patients described a pleasant distracting effect using VR glasses. Conclusion VR glasses during colonoscopy are accepted by patients and do not compromise endoscopic technical success. Patients reported that the VR experience was pleasant and distracting.

The gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire captures patient satisfaction as a key quality indicator of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is a crucial indicator of gastrointestinal endoscopy quality. The gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire (GESQ) was validated for the assessment of patient satisfaction undergoing endoscopy in English with good validity. We translated and validated the GESQ in Dutch. METHODS: The original GESQ was translated in Dutch according to the WHO guidelines. First, an internal validation of the Dutch GESQ (D-GESQ) was established by the think-aloud method and subsequent expert panel analysis. Next, the D-GESQ was embedded in the computer-based education (CBE) program in our unit, with 30-day interval after endoscopy. Adult patients, informed via CBE after undergone endoscopy, were included. Exclusion criteria were conscious sedation, limited language skills, no e-mail address available, dementia and visual impairment. For statistical analysis, several psychometric analyses were performed to identify the underlying dimensions and assessed the questionnaire for reliability and validity. RESULTS: In total, 227 of 1065 patients completed the D-GESQ, a response rate of 21.3%. Men comprised 52.6% (n = 129) of patients. Mean age was 62.7 ± 11.54 years. In total, 180 patients (79.3%) had previously undergone endoscopy, with 157 (87.2%) of them two or more times. The exploratory factor analysis showed the 21 questions could best be clustered into five clusters instead of four in the original GESQ. The D-GESQ had an overall Cronbach α of 0.88, confirming the high internal validity. CONCLUSION: The Dutch version of the GESQ showed high internal validity and practicality. We recommend the D-GESQ for routine use in endoscopy practice to improve quality of patient care.

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy.

Improving patient education focusing on bowel preparation before a colonoscopy leads to cleaner colons. Endoscopy units must obtain informed consent and perform a risk assessment for sedative use prior to a colonoscopy. The current practice in the Netherlands to achieve these goals is nurse counseling in an outpatient setting. This is costly and has disadvantages in terms of uniformity and time consumption for both the patient and the hospital. The hypothesis is that computer-based education with use of video and 3D animations may replace nurse counseling in most cases, without losing quality of bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy. This multicenter, randomized, endoscopist blinded clinical trial evaluates a primary outcome measure (bowel preparation) during colonoscopy. Secondary outcome measures are sickness absence, patient anxiety after instruction and prior to colonoscopy, patient satisfaction and information re-call. The study will be performed in four endoscopy units of different levels (rural, urban, and tertiary). Inclusion criteria are adult age and referral for complete colonoscopy. Exclusion criteria are Dutch illiteracy, audiovisual handicaps or mental disabilities and no (peers with) internet access. This trial aims to establish online computer-based education as tool for patient education prior to a colonoscopy. By choosing a direct comparison with the standard of care (nurse counseling), both endoscopic quality measures and patient related outcome measures can be evaluated.

Computer-assisted instruction before colonoscopy is as effective as nurse counselling, a clinical pilot trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Better patient education prior to colonoscopy improves adherence to instructions for bowel preparation and leads to cleaner colons. We reasoned that computer assisted instruction (CAI) using video and 3 D animations followed by nurse contact maximizes the effectiveness of nurse counselling, increases proportion of clean colons and improves patient experience. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults referred for colonoscopy in a high-volume endoscopy unit in the Netherlands were included. Exclusion criteria were illiteracy in Dutch and audiovisual handicaps. Patients were prospectively divided into 2 groups, 1 group received nurse counselling and 1 group received CAI and a nurse contact before colonoscopy. The main outcome, cleanliness of the colon during examination, was measured with Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). We assessed patient comfort and anxiety at 3 different time points. RESULTS: We included 385 patients: 197 received traditional nurse counselling and 188 received CAI. Overall patient response rates were 99 %, 76.4 % and 69.9 % respectively. Endoscopists scored cleanliness in 60.8 %. Comparative analysis of the 39.2 % of patients with missing scores showed no significant difference on age, gender or educational level. Baseline characteristics were evenly distributed over the groups. Bowel cleanliness was satisfactory and did not differ amongst groups: nurse vs. CAI group scores in BBPS: (6.54 ±â€Š1.69 vs. 6.42 ±â€Š1.62); OBPS: (6.07 ±â€Š2.53 vs. 5.80 ±â€Š2.90). Patient comfort scores were significantly higher (4.29 ±â€Š0.62 vs. 4.42 ±â€Š0.68) in the CAI group shortly before colonoscopy. Anxiety and knowledge scores were similar. CONCLUSION: CAI is a safe and practical tool to instruct patients before colonoscopy. We recommend the combination of CAI with a short nurse contact for daily practice.