medigraphic.com

2017, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Hosp Jua Mex 2017; 84 (2)

Quality and degree of patient satisfaction of colonoscopy study in the Hospital Juarez of Mexico

Gómez-Urrutia JM, Antonio-Manrique M, Chávez-García MÁ, Pérez-Corona T, Hernández-Velázquez NN, Cerna-Cardona J, Antonio-Cisneros A, Rubalcaba-Macías EJ, Burbano-Luna DF, Martínez-Ramírez G

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 63-69
PDF size: 197.59 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Quality in endoscopy is defined as the necessary characteristics of a service that meet patient’s needs and expectations. Effective colonoscopy includes a thorough and careful examination of the mucosa, considering the established quality protocol for colonoscopy, according to ASGE guidelines. Quality indicators have been determined to achieve better results, considering the degree of patient satisfaction. Objective: To evaluate the quality of the colonoscopy and the degree of patient satisfaction at the Hospital Juárez de México from January to December 2015. Material and methods: Evaluation of the colonoscopy procedure, analysis of the clinical file, telephone survey application (GHAA-9mc test validated by the ASGE). Results: 432 colonoscopy procedures were performed from January to December 2015, 362 were included, 59% were women (n = 214) and 41% were men (n = 148). The age range was 19 to 86 years, mean age 45.27 years (SD ± 16.963) and the mode was 53 years. Quality indicators (ASGE 2015) were met: pre-procedure 87.6%, trans-procedure 91.6%, post-procedure 83.33%. In 96% of cases, it was possible to cannulate ileum, a Boston scale of between 7 and 9 points in 95% of patients. Regarding user satisfaction, responded from excellent, very good and good in 90% of the study population (questionnaire validated in Spanish GHAA-9MC). Conclusions: According to the indicators of quality, our hospital is in the average of the recommended ranges, however there were some indicators in which the goal was not met. The patients at the end of the surveys gave a total rating in which they gives us a vision of the strengths and weaknesses of our endoscopy service, so it is important to consider the established guidelines and to evaluate the parameters considered as international standards.


REFERENCES

  1. Shah TU, Voils CI, McNeil R, Wu R, Fisher DA. Understanding gastroenterologist adherence to polyp surveillance guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107(9): 1283-7.

  2. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Levin TR, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143(3): 844-57.

  3. Morán SS, Torella E, Esteban DP, Baños ME, García A, Ono A y cols. Valoración de la calidad en la práctica de la colonoscopia. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2009; 101(2): 107-16.

  4. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81(1): 31-53.

  5. Obusez E, López R, Burke C, Shen B. Should diagnostic colonoscopy be indicated for patients with constipation? Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: S198.

  6. Adler A, Roll S, Marowski B, Drossel R, Rehs HU, Willich SN, et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in the era of colorectal cancer screening: A prospective, multicenter study in a private-practice setting (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 1, BECOP 1). Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50(10): 1628-38.

  7. Balaguer F, Llach J, Castells A, Bordas JM, Pellisé M, Rodríguez-Moranta F, et al. The European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21(5): 609-13.

  8. Fernández-Esparrach G, Gimeno-García AZ, Llach J, Pellisé M, Ginès A, Balaguer F y cols. Recomendaciones de utilización de la endoscopia: análisis de la probabilidad de encontrar lesiones significativas en los pacientes procedentes de la atención extrahospitalaria. Med Clin (Barc). 2007; 129(6): 205-8.

  9. Puente GJ, Domínguez JJ, Marín MM, Bernal BE. Valor de la indicación de la colonoscopia como predictor de diagnóstico de cáncer colorrectal. ¿Se puede diseñar un circuito rápido de diagnóstico? Gastroenterol & Hepatol 2008; 31(7): 413-20.

  10. Grassini M, Verna C, Battaglia E, Niola P, Navino M, Bassotti G. Education improves colonoscopy appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67(1): 88-93.

  11. Sánchez del Río A, Campo R, Llach J, Pons V, Mreish G, Panadés A y cols. Satisfacción del paciente con la endoscopia digestiva: resultados de un estudio multicéntrico. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 31(9): 566-71.

  12. Denis B, Weiss AM, Peter A, Bottlaender J, Chiappa P. Quality assurance and gastrointestinal endoscopy: An audit of 500 colonoscopic procedures. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2004; 28(12): 1245-55.

  13. Pabby A, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Burt R, Kikendall JW, et al. Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary Polyp Prevention Trial. Gastrointest Endoscop 2005; 61: 385-91.

  14. Terraz O, Wietlisbach VJG, Jeannot B, Burnand F, Froehlich JJ, Gonvers JJ. The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Digestion, 2005; 71(2): 72-77.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com