103
EVALUATION OF PATIENT SATISFACTION DURING GI ENDOSCOPY: THE INITIAL HALIFAX EXPERIENCE
K Crawford, S Gruchy, D MacIntosh
Division of Gastroenterology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Aims: The QEII Health Sciences Centre in Halifax is involved in an ongoing Canadian pilot study of the Global Rating Scale (GRS). The GRS was developed by the English National Health Service (NHS) to evaluate endoscopy unit quality and efficiency. Our initial GRS assessment identified a lack of formal procedures to gather patient feedback regarding the overall patient experience in our unit. An action plan was developed to perform patient surveys by administering a questionnaire. Ultimately, areas of concern might be addressed, resulting in an improvement in our patients' experience.
Methods: The QEII HSC Endoscopy Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire was adapted from the "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire" developed by the University of Calgary. It consisted of thirty-six questions, thirty-one of which were Yes/No answers and five of which were multi-option answers. There were provisions for written comments as well.
Questionnaires were given to patients undergoing GI endoscopy including ERCP, esophageal motility tests, and bronchoscopy. Endoscopy nurses at the time of discharge distributed the questionnaires with detailed written instructions and a pre-paid self-addressed envelope. These were to be completed within one week of the procedure. All questionnaires were anonymous. The results of returned questionnaires were entered into a database and a frequency analysis was performed using SPSS, v. 15.0.1.
Results: Six hundred and fifteen questionnaires were distributed over a 10-week period during the summer of 2008. Two hundred and five questionnaires (33%) were returned. One hundred and twenty-seven (62%) contained additional written comments.
Positive scores of 95% or greater were obtained from questions assessing the courteous behavior of both doctor and nurse, the coordination of the patient's journey through the unit, and the preservation of dignity and privacy. Areas requiring improvement (affirmative results in 66-68%) included satisfaction with communication of results, satisfaction with extent and clarity of results, and receipt of an information pamphlet or booklet prior to the procedure. Surprisingly, 10% of subjects indicated that they had not been informed of the potential risks of their procedure.
Conclusions: Administration of a questionnaire to evaluate endoscopy unit performance was a useful exercise. This work demonstrated that our unit excelled in many areas. Nonetheless, it was apparent that our performance should be improved. In particular, the informed consent process with explanation of potential complications in our unit must be addressed.