PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2024; 12(11): E1326-E1333
DOI: 10.1055/a-2441-8166
Original article

Online patient endoscopy education platform improves outpatient bowel preparation quality: Retrospective observational study

Yuming Ding 
1   Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia (Ringgold ID: RIN3883)
2   Department of Gastroenterology, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia (Ringgold ID: RIN67567)
,
Ann Vandeleur
2   Department of Gastroenterology, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia (Ringgold ID: RIN67567)
,
Gonzalo Chinchilla
2   Department of Gastroenterology, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia (Ringgold ID: RIN67567)
,
Kimberley Littlemore
3   Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN7759)
,
Ruth Hodgson
2   Department of Gastroenterology, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia (Ringgold ID: RIN67567)
,
Tony Rahman
2   Department of Gastroenterology, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia (Ringgold ID: RIN67567)
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims High-quality bowel preparation is integral to high-quality colonoscopy and adenoma detection. Studies evaluating the effect of pre-colonoscopy educational videos on bowel preparation quality have been variable. We investigated whether augmenting bowel preparation education using our professionally produced, patient-oriented, online educational video series would improve preparation quality, reduce need for repeat procedures, and improve adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Patients and methods We conducted a pilot, retrospective, single-center observational study using endoscopy data from a tertiary hospital. Colonoscopy outcomes were compared between two discrete 6-month study periods, before (control group) and after (video group) implementation of the online video intervention. All patients received standard-of-care written and verbal instructions. The video group received a link providing access to the video platform. Primary outcome was adequacy of bowel preparation (defined by the Aronchick Scale). Secondary outcomes included rate of repeat colonoscopy due to inadequate preparation, ADR, and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate.

Results The video intervention group had a lower rate of inadequate bowel preparation compared with the control group (6.3% vs 9.8%, P = 0.018). There was no difference between groups in rate of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate preparation (P = 0.62), ADR (P = 0.11), or SSL detection rate (P = 0.94). Multivariable analysis did not reveal any independent predictors of bowel preparation quality.

Conclusions Our study supports the addition of a novel patient-oriented online educational video resource as an effective tool in enhancing bowel preparation adequacy while maintaining provision of high-quality colonoscopy.

Keywords

Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Colorectal cancer - Polyps/adenomas/... - CRC screening


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 09. Juni 2024

Angenommen nach Revision: 12. Oktober 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
18. November 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Crespo J, Fernández Carrillo C, Iruzubieta P. et al. Massive impact of coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on gastroenterology and hepatology departments and doctors in Spain. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 1627-1633
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Zorron Cheng Tao Pu L, Singh G, Rajadurai A. et al. Benefits of phone consultation for endoscopy-related clinics in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 1064-1080
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Schneider D, Swan M, Hew S. Endoscopy volumes and outcomes at a tertiary Melbourne centre during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns. Med J Aust 2022; 217: 100-101
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Duggan A, Skinner IJ, Bhasale AL. All colonoscopies are not created equal: why Australia now has a clinical care standard for colonoscopy. Med J Aust 2018; 209: 427-430.e421
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sulz MC, Kröger A, Prakash M. et al. Meta-analysis of the effect of bowel preparation on adenoma detection: Early adenomas affected stronger than advanced adenomas. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154149-e0154149
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1155-1162
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Bettington M, Walker N, Rahman T. et al. High prevalence of sessile serrated adenomas in contemporary outpatient colonoscopy practice. Intern Med J 2017; 47: 318-323
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Rex DKMD, Schoenfeld PSMDMM, Cohen JMD. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Mahmood S, Farooqui SM, Madhoun MF. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 30: 819-826
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nguyen DL, Wieland M. Risk factors predictive of poor quality preparation during average risk colonoscopy screening: The importance of health literacy. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 2010; 19: 369-372
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Jeon SC, Kim JH, Kim SJ. et al. Effect of sending educational video clips via smartphone mobile messenger on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 2019; 52: 53-58
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kang X, Zhao L, Leung F. et al. Delivery of instructions via mobile social media app increases quality of bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 429-435.e423
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Tian X, Yi L-J, Han Y. et al. Comparative effectiveness of enhanced patient instructions for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Network meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e19915-e19915
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Chen G, Zhao Y, Xie F. et al. Educating outpatients for bowel preparation before colonoscopy using conventional methods vs virtual reality videos plus conventional methods: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4: e2135576-e2135576
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ye Z, Chen H, Xuan Z. et al. Educational video improves bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med 2020; 9: 671-680
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Walker TB, Hengehold TA, Garza K. et al. An interactive video educational tool does not improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled study. Dig Dis Sci 2022; 67: 2347-2357
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 PocketMedic. Colonoscopy (2017). https://pocketmedic.org/colonoscopy/
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 18 Hayat UMD, Lee PJWM, Lopez RMPH. et al. Online educational video improves bowel preparation and reduces the need for repeat colonoscopy within three years. Am J Med 2016; 129: 1219.e1211-1219.e1219
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Jain A, Jain R, Nugent Z. et al. Improving colonoscopy bowel preparation and reducing patient anxiety through recently developed online information resource: A cross-sectional study. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2022; 5: 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Jung DH, Gweon T-G, Lee S. et al. Combination of enhanced instructions improve quality of bowel preparation: A prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum 2022; 65: 117-124
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Wonggom P, Rattanakanokchai S, Suebkinorn O. Effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 10783-10783
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Deloitte. Mobile Nation 2019 - The 5G future. https://amta.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/mobile-nation-2019-the-5g-future.pdf
    PubMed
  • 23 Australian Digital Health Agency. Australia’s National Digital Health Strategy. 2017
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rodriguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H. et al. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 797-826
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Lee J, Jeong SJ, Kim TH. et al. Efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e18702-e18702
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Tran AH, Man Ngor EW. et al. Surveillance colonoscopy in elderly patients: A retrospective cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1675-1682
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Pontone S, Hassan C, Maselli R. et al. Multiple, zonal and multi-zone adenoma detection rates according to quality of cleansing during colonoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 778-783
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Keswani RN, Crockett SD, Calderwood AH. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 701-711
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Denis B, Gendre I, Tuzin N. et al. Adenoma detection rate is enough to assess endoscopist performance: a population-based observational study of FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endosc Int Open 2022; 10: E1208-E1217
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Weir K, Supramaniam R, Gibberd A. et al. Comparing colorectal cancer treatment and survival for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in New South Wales. Med J Aust 2016; 204: 156-156
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National bowel cancer screening program: monitoring report 2019. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer-screening/national-bowel-cancer-screening-program-monitoring/summary
    PubMed
  • 32 Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A. et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: A systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Cadoni S, Falt P, Rondonotti E. et al. Water exchange for screening colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 456-467
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB. et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 543-562
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Veldhuijzen G, Klemt-Kropp M, Terhaar sive Droste JS. et al. Computer-based patient education is non-inferior to nurse counselling prior to colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 254-263
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar