Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 28, 2017; 23(48): 8605-8614
Published online Dec 28, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i48.8605
Published online Dec 28, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i48.8605
Table 1 Patient background factors retrieved from the patient questionnaire n (%)
| Baseline questionnaire,n = 104 | Follow-up questionnaire,n = 100 | |
| Men | 49 (47) | 38 (38) |
| Women | 50 (48) | 57 (57) |
| Age 18-29 yr | 7 (7) | 7 (7) |
| Age 30-64 yr | 62 (60) | 52 (52) |
| Age > 64 yr | 34 (33) | 37 (37) |
| Inpatients | 10 (10) | 17 (17) |
Table 2 Part of patient questionnaire (Translated from Swedish)
| Baseline questionnaire,n = 104 Yes/No(% Yes) | Follow-up questionnaire, n = 100 Yes/No(% Yes) | P value | |
| I was offered sedatives before my examination | 97/2 (98%) | 95/2 (98%) | NS |
| I was given sedatives and/or analgesic drugs during my examination | 77/26 (75%) | 75/23 (76%) | NS |
| I was asked by the staff in the examination room to state my social security number/show identification | 96/6 (94%) | 97/1 (99%) | NS |
| I had to answer the same questions several times while I was in the examination room | 29/49 (37%) | 47/33 (59%) | 0.011 |
| I received information concerning the result of the examination/treatment | 74/5 (94%) | 81/6 (93%) | NS |
| The nurse asked me how I experienced the examination | 79/7 (92%) | 79/7 (92%) | NS |
Table 3 Staff questionnaire (Translated from Swedish)
| All Staff (Physicians and Nurses) | P value | ||
| Baseline,n = 21 (Nurses n = 8,Physicians n = 13) | Follow-Up,n = 21 (Nurses n = 8, Physicians n = 13) | ||
| Response options on a 7-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree | Median (25-75 percentiles) | ||
| The doctors and nurses work together as a well-coordinated team at the endoscopy unit | 5 (4-6) | 6 (6-7) | NS |
| I know the staff I worked with during my most recent shift at the endoscopy unit by first and last name | 6 (3.5-7) | 7 (3.25-7) | NS |
| Patient participation is considered important at the endoscopy unit | 5 (5-6.5) | 7 (6-7) | P = NS (0.08) |
| Patient safety is considered important at the endoscopy unit | 7 (6-7) | 7 (6-7) | NS |
| It is easy for patients to ask the staff questions at the endoscopy unit if there is something they do not understand | 6 (5-6) | 6 (5-7) | NS |
| It is easy for the staff to ask each other questions if there is something they do not understand | 5.5 (5-7) | 6 (5-7) | NS |
| We have clear routines for working in a patient-safe manner at the endoscopy unit | 5 (4-6.5) | 6 (6-7) | NS |
| I feel comfortable expressing a dissenting opinion to a colleague with another profession | 5 (4.5-6) | 6 (5-6.75) | NS |
| I feel comfortable expressing a dissenting opinion to a colleague with the same profession | 6 (5-6) | 6 (5-7) | NS |
| I would feel safe here as a patient | 6 (5-7) | 6 (5.25-7) | NS |
| Response options of very low, low, adequate, high, and very high aretranslated into numbers 1 to 5 below, with very low = 1 and very high = 5 | |||
| Describe the quality of your cooperation with the doctors at the endoscopy unit (answer also if you are a doctor) | 4 (4-5) | 4 (3.25-5) | NS |
| Describe the quality of the communication with the doctors at the endoscopy unit (answer also if you are a doctor) | 4 (3-4) | 4 (3-5) | NS |
| Describe the quality of your collaboration with the nurses at the endoscopy unit (answer also if you are a nurse) | 4 (4-5) | 5 (5-5) | P = NS (0.07) |
| Describe the quality of the communication with the nurses at the endoscopy unit (answer also if you are a nurse) | 4 (4-4.5) | 5 (4-5) | NS |
- Citation: Dubois H, Schmidt PT, Creutzfeldt J, Bergenmar M. Person-centered endoscopy safety checklist: Development, implementation, and evaluation. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(48): 8605-8614
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i48/8605.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i48.8605