Education for Ward Nurses Influences the Quality of Inpatient's Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lee YJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4602892 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Education for Ward Nurses Influences the Quality of Inpatient's Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.
Lee Yoo Jin YJ Kim Eun Soo ES Park Kyung Sik KS Cho Kwang Bum KB Jang Byoung Kuk BK Chung Woo Jin WJ Hwang Jae Seok JS
Medicine 20150801 34
Although adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy, preparation among inpatients is often suboptimal. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ward nurse education on the quality of bowel preparation of inpatients.A prospective, double-blinded, non-randomized, controlled study was performed. Expert endoscopists provided enhanced education to nurses who belonged to an "educated ward" followed by training that was repeated every week for 1 month. The primary outcome was the qu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Inadequate bowel preparation (BP) is an unfavorable factor that influence the success of colonoscopy. Although standard education (SE) given to patients are proved useful to avoid inadequate BP. Studies concerning the effects of reinforced education (RE) on the quality of BP were inconsistent. The aim of this updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial was to compare the quality of BP between patients receiving RE in addition to SE and those receiving SE alone. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were systemically searched to identify the relevant studies published through April 2019. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate BP. Subgroup analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes included BP score, adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), insertion time, withdrawal time, adverse events, >80% purgative intake and diet compliance. Dichotomous variables were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were reported as mean difference (MD) with 95%CI. Pooled estimates of OR or MD were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was accessed by calculating the I2 value. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS:A total of 18 randomized controlled trails (N = 6536) were included in this meta-analysis. Patients who received RE had a better BP quality than those only receiving SE (OR 2.59, 95%CI: 2.09-3.19; P<0.001). A higher ADR (OR 1.35; 95%CI: 1.06-1.72; P = 0.020) and PDR (OR 1.24, 95%CI: 1.02-1.50; P = 0.030), shorter insertion (MD -0.76; 95%CI: -1.48-(-0.04); P = 0.040) and withdrawal time (MD -0.83; 95%CI: -1.83-(-0.28); P = 0.003), less nausea/vomiting (OR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.64-0.97; P = 0.020) and abdominal distension (OR 0.72; 95%CI: 0.68-0.92; P = 0.020) were achieved in the RE group. More patients had >80% purgative intake (OR 2.17; 95%CI, 1.09-4.32; P = 0.030) and were compliant with diet restriction (OR 2.38; 95%CI: 1.79-3.17; P<0.001) in the RE group. CONCLUSION:RE significantly improved BP quality, increased ADR and PDR, decreased insertion and withdrawal time and adverse events.
| S-EPMC7188205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool in evaluating and treating gastrointestinal tract pathologies. Adequate visualization of the intestinal lumen is necessary for detection of lesions, and thus bowel preparation is a key component of the process. It is estimated that over 25% percent of pediatric patients have sub-optimal bowel preparations, which can lead to longer procedure times, missed pathology, unsuccessful ileal intubation, and possibly repeat procedure/anesthesia. There is no universal protocol for bowel preparation in pediatrics and there is a wide variability of practices around the world. The purpose of this paper is to review the recent published literature regarding bowel preparations for pediatric colonoscopy with focus on published work in the last decade exploring a number of factors involved in bowel preparation including the role of patient education, types of bowel preparation, and their efficacy and safety.
| S-EPMC8442953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Suboptimal bowel preparation has several consequences, including reduced polyp detection rate and increased cost of colorectal cancer screening. The presence of constipation is thought to be a feature associated with poor bowel preparation.To characterise the relationship between features of constipation and the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy.Patients presenting for an outpatient colonoscopy were asked to complete a questionnaire which included demographics, type of bowel purgative and features of bowel movements (BMs)-derived from the ROME III criteria for diagnosis of chronic constipation.101 patients from the community undergoing surveillance colonoscopy completed the study.Patients underwent standard bowel preparation, completed a pre-endoscopy survey, followed by routine surveillance colonoscopy.The endoscopist rated the quality of bowel preparation using the previously validated Ottawa scoring scale. Statistical analysis was performed to characterise the relationship between the existence of chronic constipation and quality of bowel preparation.BM frequency of <1/day, 1/day, 2/day, or 3/day was inversely correlated with average total Ottawa score (range 5.93 to 4.00), p=0.028) as well as recto-sigmoid Ottawa score (range 1.8 to 1.0, p=0.006). Among women, there was a statistically significant (p=0.025) association between those who reported hard stools (Ottawa=6.3) and those who denied hard stools (4.5).Eliciting features of BMs before colonoscopy may predict those at risk for poor bowel preparations and increase cost effectiveness of colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC5517183 | biostudies-other
Project description:The proportion of outpatients with inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is high owing to patient unawareness of its importance and poor adherence to instructions. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy.A comprehensive literature review identified randomized controlled trials measuring the effect of educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation. Two reviewers independently screened relevant articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the quality of each bowel preparation before colonoscopy, using a particular assessment scale. The secondary outcomes were polyp detection rates during the procedure and the need for a repeat colonoscopy due to incomplete examination.Nine randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. In all, 2885 patients were enrolled, with 1458 receiving education and 1427 assigned to the control group. An educational intervention before colonoscopy significantly improved bowel preparation (relative risk [RR] = 1.22; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.10 - 1.36), however, no significant differences were identified in polyp detection rates (RR = 1.14; 95 %CI 0.87 - 1.51) or the need for repeat colonoscopy (RR = 0.52; 95 %CI 0.25 - 1.04) between the groups. Asymmetry in the appearance of the funnel plot and the result of Egger test (P < 0.001) suggested that publication bias existed.Evidence from these randomized controlled trials shows that a brief counseling session with patients before colonoscopy ensures better bowel preparation. However, evidence is insufficient to assess improvements in polyp detection rate and avoidance of a repeat colonoscopy. Despite these encouraging observations, this meta-analysis had some limitations, including potential publication bias and significant heterogeneity of the types of bowel purgatives. These results should be interpreted with caution.
| S-EPMC4683152 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimTo evaluate the effectiveness of simethicone in enhancing visibility and efficacy during colonoscopy.MethodsA prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted. One hundred and twenty-four patients were allocated to receive 2 doses of sodium phosphate plus 240 mg of tablet simethicone or placebo as bowel preparation. Visibility was blindly assessed for the amount of air bubbles and adequacy of colon preparation. Total colonoscopic time, side effects of the medication, endoscopist and patient satisfaction were also compared.ResultsSodium phosphate plus simethicone, compared to sodium phosphate plus placebo, improved visibility by diminishing air bubbles (100.00% vs 42.37%, P < 0.0001) but simethicone failed to demonstrate improvement in adequacy of colon preparation (90.16% vs 81.36%, P = 0.17). Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were increased significantly in the simethicone group. However, there was no difference in the total duration of colonoscopy and side effects of the medication.ConclusionThe addition of simethicone is of benefit for colonoscopic bowel preparation by diminishing air bubbles, which results in enhanced visibility. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction is also increased.
| S-EPMC2702112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBowel preparation is inadequate in a large proportion of colonoscopies, leading to multiple clinical and economic harms. While most patients receive some form of education before colonoscopy, there is no consensus on the best approach.AimsThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of patient education interventions to improve bowel preparation.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a patient education intervention; (2) a primary aim of improving bowel preparation; (3) a validated bowel preparation scale; (4) a prospective design; (5) a concurrent control group; and, (6) adult participants. Study validity was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale.Results1,080 abstracts were screened. Seven full text studies met inclusion criteria, including 2,660 patients. These studies evaluated multiple delivery platforms, including paper-based interventions (three studies), videos (two studies), re-education telephone calls the day before colonoscopy (one study), and in-person education by physicians (one study). Bowel preparation significantly improved with the intervention in all but one study. All but one study were done in a single center. Validity scores ranged from 13 to 24 (maximum 27). Four of five abstracts and research letters that met inclusion criteria also showed improvements in bowel preparation. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.ConclusionCompared to usual care, patient education interventions appear efficacious in improving the quality of bowel preparation. However, because of the small scale of the studies and individualized nature of the interventions, results of these studies may not be generalizable to other settings. Healthcare practices should consider systematically evaluating their current bowel preparation education methods before undertaking new interventions.
| S-EPMC5065159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The gut microbiota is important in maintaining human health, but numerous factors have the potential to alter its composition. Our aim was to examine the impact of a standard bowel preparation on the intestinal microbiota using two different techniques. Fifteen subjects undergoing colonoscopy consumed a bowel preparation comprised of 10 mg bisacodyl and 2 L polyethylene glycol. The microbiota of stool samples, collected one month before, one week before (pre-colonoscopy), and one week, one month, and three to six months after colonoscopy (post-colonoscopy) was evaluated. Two samples were taken three to six months apart from five healthy subjects who did not undergo colonoscopy. Universal primers targeting the V2-V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene were used to PCR amplify all samples for denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE). Pre- and post-colonoscopy samples were compared using Dice's similarity coefficients. Three samples from ten subjects who underwent colonoscopy, and both samples from the five subjects who didn't, were used for high-throughput sequencing of the V1-V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Samples were curated and analysed in Mothur. Results of the DGGE analyses show that the fecal microbiota of a small number of subjects had short-term changes. High-throughput sequencing results indicated that the variation between the samples of subjects who underwent colonoscopy was no greater than the variation observed between samples from subjects who did not. We conclude that bowel preparation does not have a lasting effect on the composition of the intestinal microbiota for the majority of subjects.
| S-EPMC3641102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsAn inadequately cleansed colon can lead to missed lesions, repeat procedures, increased cost, and complications from colonoscopy. Because obesity, with its known link to colorectal neoplasia, might be associated with inadequate bowel cleansing, we investigated the impact of increased body mass index (BMI) on quality of bowel preparation at colonoscopy.MethodsAll colonoscopy procedures performed at a tertiary referral center during a 4-month period were evaluated. Bowel preparation was assigned a unique composite outcome score that took into account a subjective bowel preparation score, earlier recommendation for follow-up colonoscopy as a result of inadequate bowel preparation, and the endoscopist's confidence in adequate evaluation of the colon. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the role of BMI in predicting an inadequate bowel preparation.ResultsDuring the study period, 1588 patients (59.1% female; mean age, 57.4 +/- 0.34 years) fulfilled inclusion criteria. An abnormal BMI (> or =25) was associated with an inadequate composite outcome score (P = .002). In multivariate logistic regression analyses, both BMI > or =25 (P = .04) and > or =30 (P = .006) were retained as independent predictors of inadequate bowel preparation. Each unit increase in BMI increased the likelihood of an inadequate composite outcome score by 2.1%. Additional independent predictors of inadequate preparation exponentially increased the likelihood of an inadequate composite outcome score; 7 additional risk factors identified 97.5% of overweight patients with an inadequate composite outcome score.ConclusionsObesity is an independent predictor of inadequate bowel preparation at colonoscopy. The presence of additional risk factors further increases the likelihood of a poorly cleansed colon.
| S-EPMC4151157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The success of a colonoscopy in detecting and removing pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions depends heavily on the quality of bowel preparation. Despite efforts, 20-44% of colonoscopy participants have an inadequate bowel preparation. We aimed to assess and compare risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and for the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasms in routine screening practice. In this cross-sectional study, among 8125 participants of screening colonoscopy in Germany with a comprehensive assessment of sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and medical history, we examined factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and with findings of advanced neoplasms using adjusted log-binomial regression models. Among the identified risk factors assessed, three factors were identified that were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation: age ≥ 70 years (adjusted prevalence ratios, aPR, 1.50 95%CI 1.31-1.71), smoking (aPR 1.29 95%CI 1.11-1.50) and abdominal symptoms (aPR 1.14 95%CI 1.02-1.27). The same risk factors were also associated with the prevalence of advanced neoplasms in our study (aPR 1.72, 1.62 and 1.44, respectively). The risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation in this study were also associated with a higher risk for advanced neoplasms. Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy might lead to missed colorectal cancer (CRC) precursors and the late diagnosis of CRC. People at high risk of advanced neoplasms are in particular need of enhanced bowel preparation.
| S-EPMC8233947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to define the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of oral mannitol used as an osmotic laxative for bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The PKs of oral mannitol was evaluated in a substudy as part of a phase II dose-finding, international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, endoscopist-blinded study. Patients were randomly assigned to take 50, 100, or 150 g mannitol. Venous blood samples were drawn at baseline (T0), 1 h (T1), 2 h (T2), 4 h (T4), and 8 h (T8) after completion of mannitol self-administration. The mean mannitol plasma concentrations (mg/ml) were dose-dependent with a consistent difference among doses. The mean maximum concentration (Cmax) ± SD was 0.63 ± 0.15, 1.02 ± 0.28, and 1.36 ± 0.39 mg/ml, in the three dosage groups, respectively. The mean area under the curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-∞) was 2.667 ± 0.668, 4.992 ± 1.706, and 7.403 ± 3.472 mg/ml*h in the 50, 100, and 150 g mannitol dose groups, respectively. Bioavailability was similar in the three dose groups and was just over 20% (0.243 ± 0.073, 0.209 ± 0.081, and 0.228 ± 0.093 in the 50, 100, and 150 g mannitol dose groups, respectively). The present study showed that the bioavailability of oral mannitol is just over 20% and is similar for the three tested doses (50, 100, and 150 g). The linear increase in Cmax, AUC0-t8, and AUC0-∞ must be considered when choosing the oral mannitol dose for bowel preparation to avoid its systemic osmotic effects.
| S-EPMC9579383 | biostudies-literature