Objective To investigate the agreement in comfort scores between patients, endoscopist and specialist screening practitioner (SSP) for colonoscopy, and which factors influence comfort.
Design Prospective observational study.
Setting Single-centre UK Bowel Cancer Screening Program colonoscopy service from April 2017 to March 2018.
Patients 498 patients undergoing bowel cancer screening colonoscopy, with median age of 68 (IQR 64–71). 320 (64.3%) were men.
Intervention All patients underwent screening colonoscopy.
Main outcome measure Comfort scores on a validated 1 (best) to 5 (worst) ordinal scale were assigned for each colonoscopy by the patient, endoscopist and SSP. Inter-rater agreement of discomfort scores between endoscopist, patient and SSP was investigated using Cohen’s Kappa statistic. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression was used to investigate the effects of patient and colonoscopy factors on comfort scores.
Results SSPs had superior comfort score agreement with patients (0.638; ‘moderate agreement’) than endoscopists had with the same patients (0.526; ‘weak agreement’). Male patients reported lower scores than female patients (OR 0.483, OR 0.499 [95% CI 0.344 to 0.723]; p<0.001). Endoscopists reported lower scores when there was better bowel prep (OR 0.512 [95% CI 0.279 to 0.938]; p=0.030). Agreement was worse at higher levels of discomfort.
Conclusion There is variability in perceived comfort levels between healthcare providers and patients during screening colonoscopy, which is greater at worse levels of discomfort. Endoscopists who undertake screening colonoscopies may wish to consider both patient and healthcare provider comfort scores in order to improve patient experience while ensuring optimal quality assurance.
- abdominal pain
- colorectal cancer screening
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors SK and SP-C planned athe study. SK and SP-C conducted the study and collected all data. DNN analysed and interpreted the data. DNN wrote the first manuscipt. SK and SP-C provided critical appraisal and editing. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.