Dataset Information

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020173906.

SUBMITTER: Sue-Chue-Lam C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7488806 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol.

Sue-Chue-Lam Colin C Castelo Matthew M Tinmouth Jill J Llovet Diego D Kishibe Teruko T Baxter Nancy N NN

BMJ open 20200913 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>The patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interv ...[more]

PMID: 32928862

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient experience is recognised as a quality of care indicator and increasingly health services are working on achieving set targets and improving their performance. Interventions at the point of care targeting communication with patients, patient engagement in care processes and discharge planning are associated with better patient experience. However, their efficacy and application to different contexts are still unclear. The aims were to describe the interventions implemented by health services to improve patient experience, their impact on overall patient experiences and specific experiences in areas of communication, discharge planning, patient education on treatment/tests, the physical environment and access to care.MethodsSecondary data analysis of the Victorian Healthcare Experience inpatient surveys reported in September 2016 and 2018 and content analysis of interventions published in the Victorian Quality Account for 2017 from 59 public health services in Victoria, Australia. The interventions were categorised using an adapted taxonomy of professional interventions by the Cochrane EPOC Review Group. Univariate tests and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to test measure invariance across the 2016 and 2018 groups and examine the association between each of the intervention categories on overall patient experience measure and specific outcome measures.ResultsThis study found that the overall patient experience was consistent (93%) between 2016 and 2018 samples. In comparing impact, a single intervention rather than none or multiple interventions in communication, respect and dignity and treatment and disease education areas were associated with a higher level of the overall patient experience. Interventions in waiting time, access to service, care continuity and emotional support categories were associated with a decrease in overall patient experience.ConclusionThis study found that to improve the overall patient experience, more focus is needed on evidence-based interventions in dignity and respect and emotional support. Furthermore, the choice of interventions should be guided by evidence of their efficacy and prioritising implementing one intervention well, provides more gains.

Project description:Introduction: Prematurity (birth before 37 +0 weeks' gestation) is associated with wide-ranging neurodevelopmental impairment. Prognosis among moderate to late (32 +0 to <37 +0 weeks' gestation) preterm infants (MLPT) is better compared to their counterparts born very preterm (<32 +0 weeks' gestation). However the risk of developmental impairment among MLPT, who make up about 84% of all preterm infants, is 2-3 times higher when compared to infants born at term. Early interventions have aimed to improve outcomes in preterm infants generally, but there are limited data on their need and effect in MLPT specifically. Prioritising research, long-term follow-up and early interventions targeted at ameliorating the impact of preterm birth among MLPT is required. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the type of early childhood interventions (from birth until 4 years of age) offered to MLPT children and to evaluate their impact on neurodevelopmental outcomes (cognitive, neurobehavioural and motor) as assessed in these children during childhood (until 18 years of age). Methods and analysis: A systematic literature search in Web of Science, Medline Ovid, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE will be conducted. Data on MLPT children receiving developmental interventions until the age of 4 years will be evaluated. Interventions may involve parents or primary caregivers. Primary outcomes are cognitive, neurobehavioural and motor development as measured from birth until the age of 18 years. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review and will be graded as low, high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of non-RCTs will be evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Approach. Publication and reporting bias will be assessed using Egger's test and funnel plots respectively.

Project description:BackgroundBowel preparation for colonoscopy is often poorly tolerated due to poor palatability and adverse effects. This can negatively impact on the patient experience and on the quality of bowel preparation. This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to assess whether adjuncts to bowel preparation affected palatability, tolerability and quality of bowel preparation (bowel cleanliness).MethodsA systematic search strategy was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify studies evaluating adjunct use for colonoscopic bowel preparation. Studies comparing different regimens and volumes were excluded. Specific outcomes studied included palatability (taste), willingness to repeat bowel preparation, gastrointestinal adverse events and the quality of bowel preparation. Data across studies were pooled using a random-effects model and heterogeneity assessed using I2-statistics.ResultsOf 467 studies screened, six were included for analysis (all single-blind randomised trials; n = 1187 patients). Adjuncts comprised citrus reticulata peel, orange juice, menthol candy drops, simethicone, Coke Zero and sugar-free chewing gum. Overall, adjunct use was associated with improved palatability (mean difference 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.96, p < 0.001) on a scale of 0-5, acceptability of taste (odds ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-4.95, p < 0.001) and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (odds ratio 2.92, 95% confidence interval: 1.97-4.35, p < 0.001). Patients in the adjunct group reported lower rates of bloating (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.77, p = 0.003) and vomiting (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.81, p = 0.007), but no difference in nausea (p = 0.10) or abdominal pain (p = 0.62). Adjunct use resulted in superior bowel cleanliness (odds ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.85, p = 0.006). Heterogeneity varied across outcomes, ranging from 0% (vomiting) to 81% (palatability), without evidence of publication bias. The overall quality of evidence was rated moderate.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis, the use of adjuncts was associated with better palatability, less vomiting and bloating, willingness to repeat bowel preparation and superior quality of bowel preparation. The addition of adjuncts to bowel preparation may improve outcomes of colonoscopy and the overall patient experience.

Project description:IntroductionThe human hand is extremely involved in our daily lives. However, the rehabilitation of hand function after stroke can be rather difficult due to the complexity of hand structure and function, as well as neural basis that supports hand function. Specifically, in individuals with moderate to severe impairment following a stroke, previous evidence for effective treatments that recover hand function in this population is limited, and thus has never been reviewed. With the progress of rehabilitation science and tool development, results from more and more clinical trials are now available, thereby justifying conducting a systematic review.Methods and analysisThis systematic review protocol is consistent with the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Electronic searches will be carried out in the PubMed, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Library databases, along with manual searches in the reference lists from included studies and published systematic reviews. The date range parameters used in searching all databases is between January 1999 and January 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, with the primary outcome focusing on hand motor function, will be included. Two reviewers will screen all retrieved titles, abstracts and full texts, perform the evaluation of the risk bias and extract all data independently. The risk of bias of the included RCTs will be evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A qualitative synthesis will be provided in text and table, to summarise the main results of the selected publications. A meta-analysis will be considered if there is sufficient homogeneity across outcomes. The quality of the included publications will be evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is needed, and the results of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberCRD42019128285.

Dataset Information

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol.

Publications

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets