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.

Alternative vs. conventional treatment given on-demand for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alternative treatments are commonly used for various disorders and often taken on-demand. On-demand treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with pharmaceutical products is an established, cost-effective strategy. Comparisons between alternative medicine and pharmaceutical products are rare. The aim of this trial was to compare on-demand treatment with a pectin-based, raft-forming, natural, anti-reflux agent (PRA) with that of esomeprazole 20 mg (Eso20) in patients with mild/moderate GERD. METHODS: Patients with mild/moderate GERD were randomised to a six weeks' on-demand treatment with PRA or Eso20 in a pragmatic, open, multicentre trial. Overall satisfaction with treatment, satisfactory relief on a weekly basis, reflux symptoms, and treatment preferences were noted. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were included in the analyses. Eso20 was significantly superior to PRA for proportion of overall satisfied patients (92% and 58% respectively; p = 0.001), reduction of symptoms (mean symptom scores at the end 5.9 and 8.0 respectively; p = 0.019), proportion of weeks of satisfactory relief (89% and 62% respectively; p = 0.008) and proportion preferring continuation with the same treatment (85% and 42% respectively; p < 0.001). Older patients were more satisfied than younger, and patients preferring on-demand treatment had lower symptom scores at inclusion than those preferring regular treatment. CONCLUSION: On-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg was clearly superior to the pectin-based raft-forming agent. Most patients preferred on-demand treatment to regular treatment. Those preferring regular therapy had significantly more symptoms at inclusion.