5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Although sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.

          Design

          We recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.

          Results

          Twenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.

          Conclusion

          The recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists.

          (2002)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy.

              Medicare beneficiaries now have access to screening colonoscopy (SC). For colon cancer screening to be fruitful, SC must become more acceptable to a broad segment of this population. However, we currently lack knowledge of which aspects of SC have an impact on patient acceptance. The aims of this study were: 1) to identify the features of SC that are most important in deterring participation, and 2) to prioritize and to compare the perceptions of never-screened individuals with those of individuals previously screened for colon cancer. Questionnaires were distributed to 300 outpatients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (150 never-screened patients; 150 previously screened patients). The survey instrument addressed domains of the Health Belief Model and colon cancer risk perception. Patients ranked the three most important barriers to SC and answered general knowledge questions on colon cancer. Response rates of never-screened (84%) and screened (88%) patients were similar. Never-screened patients were less likely to have a regular primary physician (80% vs 95%, p = 0.0003) and were less likely to have undergone a prior screening mammography (87% vs 96% of women, p = 0.02) compared with screened patients. The four most reported deterrents to SC ("volume of bowel preparation," "adequate analgesia," "no recommendation from primary physician," and "embarrassment") were ranked similarly by both groups. Never-screened patients had less understanding of the incidence and treatment outcomes of colon cancer. Colon cancer screening behavior seems to be associated with having a regular primary physician, as well as other cancer screening behaviors. Knowledge of colon cancer is the most reliable discriminator of prior screening status. There does not seem to be any difference in the preferences expressed by never-screened and screened patients with respect to the aspects of colonoscopy that they find objectionable.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open Gastroenterol
                BMJ Open Gastroenterol
                bmjgast
                bmjgast
                BMJ Open Gastroenterology
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2054-4774
                2020
                16 February 2020
                : 7
                : 1
                : e000348
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery , University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]departmentInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation , Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Medicine , The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Cancer Care Ontario , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of General Surgery , St Michael's Hospital , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology , VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle, Washington, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Fahima Dossa; fahima.dossa@ 123456mail.utoronto.ca
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4670-7445
                Article
                bmjgast-2019-000348
                10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000348
                7039579
                4d567d65-2a15-4211-9a29-aa9954cd4141
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 October 2019
                : 10 December 2019
                : 11 December 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award ID: 148470
                Categories
                Endoscopy
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                endoscopy,colonoscopy,screening
                endoscopy, colonoscopy, screening

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content395

                Cited by6

                Most referenced authors565