Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2017; 05(12): E1172-E1178
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-117954
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

A short telephone-call reminder improves bowel preparation, quality indicators and patient satisfaction with first colonoscopy

Marisol Gálvez
Endoscopy Unit of Gastroenterology Service, Mexico City General Hospital “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Angel Mario Zarate
Endoscopy Unit of Gastroenterology Service, Mexico City General Hospital “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Hector Espino
Endoscopy Unit of Gastroenterology Service, Mexico City General Hospital “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Fátima Higuera-de la Tijera
Endoscopy Unit of Gastroenterology Service, Mexico City General Hospital “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Richard Alexander Awad
Endoscopy Unit of Gastroenterology Service, Mexico City General Hospital “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico City, Mexico
,
Santiago Camacho
Endoscopy Unit of Gastroenterology Service, Mexico City General Hospital “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico City, Mexico
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 18 May 2017

accepted after revision03 July 2017

Publication Date:
21 November 2017 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

A short telephone-call reminder improves bowel preparation, quality indicators and patient satisfaction with first colonoscopyEndosc Int Open 2017; 05(12): C4-C4
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-124036

Abstract

Background and study aims Addition of a reminder program to conventional indications improves colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a short telephone call reminder (STCR) on a patient’s first colonoscopy.

Patients and methods One day before colonoscopy, we made a STCR of < 10 minutes to 141 randomly selected patients of 258 recruited. The STCRs informed patients about the procedure date, indications for taking laxatives, and dietetic requirements. Questions were clarified only when patients asked directly. We evaluated bowel preparation, quality indicators, and patient satisfaction. Data were expressed as mean ± SD and percentages. Statistical differences were evaluated by Student’s t and Chi squared tests; alpha = 0.05. All authors had access to the study data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Results The STCR group had better bowel preparation which was demonstrated by higher completion frequency (97.16 % vs. 82.05 %), in less time (4.52 ± 3.06 vs. 5.38 ± 3.03 hours) intake of laxative, and higher Boston’s scale (7.66 ± 2.42 vs. 5.2 ± 1.65). Quality indicators of colonoscopy were better in patients that received a STCR [cecal intubation rate: 100.00 % vs. 87.18 %; polyp detection: 42.55 % vs. 9.4 %; and cecal arrival time (min): 12.09 ± 3.62 vs. 15.09 ± 5.02]. STCR patients were more satisfied (97.87 % vs. 55.56 %) and would repeat colonoscopy (21.99 % vs. 11.11 %).

Conclusions A simple additional step such as a STCR improves quality of bowel preparation, quality indicators, and satisfaction of patients undergoing their first colonoscopy. Clinical trial registry in Mexico City General Hospital: DI/16/107/3/108.

 

  • References

  • 1 Brand EC, Wallace MB. Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2017; 15: 184-212
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Benedict M, Galvao NA, Zhang X. Interval colorectal carcinoma: An unsolved debate. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 12735-12741
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Jang JY, Chun HJ. Bowel preparations as quality indicators for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 2746-2750
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Serper M, Gawron AJ, Smith SG. et al. Patient factors that affect quality of colonoscopy preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 451-457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC. et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR. et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696-1700
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ. et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 1933-1943.e5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 McLachlan SA, Clements A, Austoker J. Patients’ experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context – a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86: 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L. et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut 2014; 63: 125-130
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Guo X, Yang Z, Zhao L. et al. Enhanced instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 90-97
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ghevariya V, Duddempudi S, Ghevariya N. et al. Barriers to screening colonoscopy in an urban population: a study to help focus further efforts to attain full compliance. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28: 1497-1503
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Liu Z, Zhang MM, Li YY. et al. Enhanced education for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A state-of-the-art review. J Dig Dis 2017; 18: 84-91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Issue Information-Declaration of Helsinki. J Bone Miner Res 2017 32. BM
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wallace MB, Wang KK, Adler DG. et al. Recent Advances in Endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Valdovinos Andraca F, Elizondo-Rivera J, de la Torre Bravo A. et al. Segundo consenso mexicano para la Enseñanza de la endoscopia gastrointestinal. Endoscopia 2015; 27: 14-24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Faulx AL, Lightdale JR, Acosta RD. et al. Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 273-281
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M. et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1207-1214
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A. et al. Validated Scales for Colon Cleansing: A Systematic Review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Gurudu SR, Fry LC, Fleischer DE. et al. Factors contributing to patient nonattendance at open-access endoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2006; 51: 1942-1945
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Childers RE, Laird A, Newman L. et al. The role of a nurse telephone call to prevent no-shows in endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 1010-1017
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Lee CS, McCormick PA. Telephone reminders to reduce non-attendance rate for endoscopy. J R Soc Med 2003; 96: 547-548
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Chan WK, Saravanan A, Manikam J. et al. Appointment waiting times and education level influence the quality of bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 86
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Seo EH, Kim TO, Park MJ. et al. Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 583-590
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Calderwood AH, Schroy III PC, Lieberman DA. et al. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 269-276
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Shaikh AA, Hussain SM, Rahn S. et al. Effect of an educational pamphlet on colon cancer screening: a randomized, prospective trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 22: 444-449
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR. et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 952-957
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kashiwagi K, Inoue N, Yoshida T. et al. Polyp detection rate in transverse and sigmoid colon significantly increases with longer withdrawal time during screening colonoscopy. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0174155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Asadzadeh AH, Nazemalhosseini ME, Ashtari S. et al. Polyp detection rate and pathological features in patients undergoing a comprehensive colonoscopy screening. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol 2017; 8: 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T. et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1197-1203
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 de Lascurain-Morhan E. [Prevalence of adenomas and carcinomas of the colon. Results of the rectosigmoid exam]. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2001; 66: 131-136
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Yadlapati R, Gawron A, Keswani RN. Patient satisfaction does not correlate with established colonoscopy quality metrics. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1089-1091
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM. et al. Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 2355-2361
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E. et al. Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 172-176
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Hancock KS, Mascarenhas R, Lieberman D. What can we do to optimize colonoscopy and how effective can we be?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2016; 18: 27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Lee YJ, Kim ES, Choi JH. et al. Impact of reinforced education by telephone and short message service on the quality of bowel preparation: a randomized controlled study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1018-1027
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Patel AR, Kessler J, Braithwaite RS. et al. Economic evaluation of mobile phone text message interventions to improve adherence to HIV therapy in Kenya. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e6078
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Dube C, Rostom A. Acquiring and maintaining competency in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30: 339-347
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Macias Angeles YR, Saraiba Reyes M, Tejada Garcia RA. et al. Comparación de la efectividad de 2 esquemas de preparación intestinal para colonoscopia en el Hospital General de México. Endoscopia 2015; 27: 98-103
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar