Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway

Abstract

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.

• References

• 1 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 2 Nelson EC, Eftimovska E, Lind C. et al. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ 2015; 350: g7818
• 3 Valori R, Rey JF, Atkin WS. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE88-SE105
• 4 Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A. et al. Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 813-818
• 5 Fox JP, Burkardt DD, Ranasinghe I. et al. Hospital-based acute care after outpatient colonoscopy: implications for quality measurement in the ambulatory setting. Med Care 2014; 52: 801-808
• 6 Beaulieu D, Barkun A, Martel M. Quality audit of colonoscopy reports amongst patients screened or surveilled for colorectal neoplasia. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 3551-3557
• 7 Viiala CH, Zimmerman M, Cullen DJ. et al. Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment. Int Med J 2003; 33: 355-359
• 8 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G. et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
• 9 Heldwein W, Dollhopf M, Rosch T. et al. The Munich Polypectomy Study (MUPS): prospective analysis of complications and risk factors in 4000 colonic snare polypectomies. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 1116-1122
• 10 Ghanouni A, Plumb A, Hewitson P. et al. Patients' experience of colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 232-240
• 11 Hatoum HT, Lin SJ, Joseph RE. et al. Validation of a patient satisfaction scale in patients undergoing bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. Patient 2016; 9: 27-34
• 12 Ball AJ, Rees CJ, Corfe BM. et al. Sedation practice and comfort during colonoscopy: lessons learnt from a national screening programme. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 27: 741-746
• 13 Martindale F, Mikocka-Walus AA, Walus BP. et al. The effects of a designer music intervention on patients' anxiety, pain, and experience of colonoscopy: a short report on a pilot study. Gastroenterol Nurs 2014; 37: 338-342
• 14 Nicolai MP, Keller JJ, de Vries L. et al. The impact of sexual abuse in patients undergoing colonoscopy. PloS One 2014; 9: e85034
• 15 Denters MJ, Schreuder M, Depla AC. et al. Patientsʼ perception of colonoscopy: patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome experience the largest burden. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25: 964-972
• 16 Bjorkman I, Karlsson F, Lundberg A. et al. Gender differences when using sedative music during colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Nurs 2013; 36: 14-20
• 17 McEntire J, Sahota J, Hydes T. et al. An evaluation of patient attitudes to colonoscopy and the importance of endoscopist interaction and the endoscopy environment to satisfaction and value. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 366-373
• 18 von Wagner C, Ghanouni A, Halligan S. et al. Patient acceptability and psychologic consequences of CT colonography compared with those of colonoscopy: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of symptomatic patients. Radiology 2012; 263: 723-731
• 19 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
• 20 Gavaruzzi T, Carnaghi A, Lotto L. et al. Recalling pain experienced during a colonoscopy: pain expectation and variability. British J Health Psychol 2010; 15: 253-264
• 21 Ylinen ER, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Pietila AM. et al. Medication-free colonoscopy--factors related to pain and its assessment. J Adv Nurs 2009; 65: 2597-2607
• 22 Hayee B, Dunn J, Loganayagam A. et al. Midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl for colonoscopy: results of a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 681-687
• 23 Bechtold ML, Puli SR, Othman MO. et al. Effect of music on patients undergoing colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54: 19-24
• 24 Kinner S, Kuehle CA, Langhorst J. et al. MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients' acceptance in a screening population. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 2286-2293
• 25 Sewitch MJ, Gong S, Dube C. et al. A literature review of quality in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy from the patient perspective. Can J Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 681-685
• 26 Sewitch MJ, Dube C, Brien S. et al. Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 25-32
• 27 Thiis-Evensen E, Wilhelmsen I, Hoff GS. et al. The psychologic effect of attending a screening program for colorectal polyps. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999; 34: 103-109
• 28 Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Loberg M. et al. Population-based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med 2016; 176: 894-902
• 29 Holme O, Bretthauer M, de Lange T. et al. Risk stratification to predict pain during unsedated colonoscopy: results of a multicenter cohort study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 691-696
• 30 Valori R, Sint Nicolaas JJ, de Jonge V. Quality assurance of endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 451-464
• 31 Singh H, Penfold RB, DeCoster C. et al. Colonoscopy and its complications across a Canadian regional health authority. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 665-671