A Literature Review of Quality in Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy from the Patient Perspective
Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Le tri à trois modèles
les 1 000 travaux triés →Les trois modèles l'ont jugé hors champ.
Systematic review used to answer a health-services question about endoscopy quality from the patient perspective; uses a synthesis method rather than studying one.
This review concerns patient-perceived quality of endoscopy services, not research practice.
Literature review of patient-perceived quality of clinical endoscopy services.
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Given the limited state of health care resources, increased demand for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening raises concerns about the quality of endoscopy services. Little is known about quality in colonoscopy and endoscopy from the patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on quality that is relevant to patients who require colonoscopy or endoscopy services. METHODS: A systematic PubMed search was performed on articles that were published between January 2000 and February 2011. Keywords included "colonoscopy" or "sigmoidoscopy" or "endoscopy" AND "quality"; "colonoscopy" or "sigmoidoscopy" or "endoscopy" AND "patient satisfaction" or "willingness to return". The included articles were qualitative and quantitative English language studies regarding aspects of colonoscopy and⁄or endoscopy services that were evaluated by patients in which data were collected within one year of the colonoscopy⁄endoscopy procedure. RESULTS: In total, 28 quantitative studies were identified, of which eight (28.6%) met the inclusion criteria (four cross-sectional, three prospective cohort and one single-blinded controlled study). Aspects of quality included comfort, management of pain and anxiety, endoscopy unit staff manner, skills and specialty, procedure and results discussion with the doctor, physical environment, wait times for the appointment and procedure, and discharge. Qualitative studies eliciting the patient perspective on what constituted quality in colonoscopy⁄endoscopy were not found. CONCLUSIONS: Factors related to comfort, staff, communication and the service environment were evaluated from the patient perspective using closed-ended questions that were designed by clinicians and researchers. Future research using qualitative methodology to elicit the patient perspective on quality in colonoscopy and⁄or endoscopy services is needed.
Conservé avec la notice de tri, où il sert de preuve aux étiquettes ci-dessus.
La notice
- Revue
- Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology
- Thématique
- Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Domaine
- Medicine
- Établissements canadiens
- McMaster University Medical CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
- Organismes subventionnaires
- —
- Mots-clés
- ColonoscopySigmoidoscopyMedicineEndoscopySpecialtyQualitative researchQuality (philosophy)General surgeryColorectal cancerMedical physicsFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicineCancer
- Résumé présent dans OpenAlex
- oui