Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services, Pulsus Group Inc
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver (CASL)

Note: (Optional)

Citation Builder

  •  
Return to Table of Contents
 
Original Articles January 2013, Volume 27 Issue 1: 25- 32
 

Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services

MJ Sewitch | C Dubé | S Brien | M Jiang | RJ Hilsden | AN Barkun | D Armstrong

BACKGROUND: Current quality improvement tools for endoscopy services, such as the Global Rating Scale (GRS), emphasize the need for patient-centred care. However, there are no studies that have investigated patient expectations and/or perceptions of quality indicators in endoscopy services.
OBJECTIVES: To identify quality indicators for colonoscopy services from the patient perspective; to rate indicators of importance; to determine factors that influence indicator ratings; and to compare the identified indicators with those of the GRS.
METHODS: A two-phase mixed methods study was undertaken in Montreal (Quebec), Calgary (Alberta) and Hamilton (Ontario) among patients ≥18 years of age who spoke and read English or French. In phase 1, focus group participants identified quality indicators that were then used to construct a survey questionnaire. In phase 2, survey questionnaires, which were completed immediately after colonoscopy, prompted respondents to rate the 20 focus group-derived indicators according to their level of importance (low, medium, high) and to list up to nine additional items. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors that influenced focus group-derived indicator ratings. Patient-identified indicators were compared with those used in the GRS to identify novel indicators.
RESULTS: Three quality indicator themes were identified by 66 participants in 12 focus groups: communication, comfort and service environment. Of the 828 surveys distributed, 402 (48.6%) were returned and 65% of focus group-derived indicators were rated highly important by at least 55% of survey respondents. Indicator ratings differed according to age, sex, site and perceived colorectal cancer risk. Of the 29 patient-identified indicators, 17 (58.6%) were novel.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified 17 novel quality indicators, suggesting that patients and health professionals differ in their perspectives with respect to quality in colonoscopy services.

Colorectal cancer screening | Indicators | Quality
   Français   
          
Click to download PDF Reader
 
 




Copyright © Pulsus Group Inc.