Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Patient Experiences with Surveillance Endoscopy: A Qualitative Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Prior studies examining patterns of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) demonstrate variable adherence to practice guidelines. In prior studies, memories of endoscopic experiences shaped overall perceptions and subsequent adherence behaviors, but the specific elements of that experience are unclear. We sought to identify specific elements of the EGD experience that frame overall perceptions of surveillance.

Methods

We conducted structured in-depth, qualitative interviews with BE patients with a range of severity (non-dysplastic, low-grade and high-grade dysplasia) who recently completed an EGD. Data collection continued until we reached thematic saturation (n = 20). We applied principles of framework analysis to identify emerging themes regarding patients’ salient EGD experiences. We validated our coding scheme through multidisciplinary consensus meetings comprised of clinician (gastroenterologist and internist) and non-clinician investigators (sociologist and public health expert).

Results

Patient experiences can be conceptualized within a temporal model: prior to, during, and after endoscopy. The most memorable aspects of the EGD experience include physician-patient communication prior to EGD, wait time at the endoscopy center, interpersonal interactions at the time of the EGD, level of pain or discomfort with the procedure, level of trust in the physician following EGD, and gaining a sense of control over BE.

Conclusions

We identified six salient memories before, during, and after the procedure that shape patients’ perceptions of the EGD experience. We offer recommendations for measuring patient experiences using a composite of validated survey items. Future studies should test the relation of patient experience measures and adherence to surveillance EGD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J, et al. A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago workshop. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:310–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pohl H, Welch HG. The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:142–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Connor JB, Falk GW, Richter JE. The incidence of adenocarcinoma and dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: report on the Cleveland Clinic Barrett’s Esophagus Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2037–2042.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Drewitz DJ, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS. The incidence of adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective study of 170 patients followed 4.8 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:212–215.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper GS, Kou TD, Chak A. Receipt of previous diagnoses and endoscopy and outcome from esophageal adenocarcinoma: a population-based study with temporal trends. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1356–1362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirota WK, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG, et al. ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:570–580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Practice parameters committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:788–797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Choosing Wisely: Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question. Website 2013. http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-gastroenterological-association/. Accessed May 13, 2013.

  10. Crockett SD, Lipkus IM, Bright SD, et al. Overutilization of endoscopic surveillance in nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:23–31.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Serag HB, Duan Z, Hinojosa-Lindsey M, et al. Practice patterns of surveillance endoscopy in a Veterans Affairs database of 29,504 patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(4):743–755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hinojosa-Lindsey M, Arney J, Heberlig S, et al. Patients’ intuitive judgments about surveillance endoscopy in Barrett’s Esophagus: a review and application to models of decision making. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26:682–689. doi:10.1111/dote.12028.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Crockett SD, Lippmann QK, Dellon ES, et al. Health related quality of life in patients with Barrett’s Esophagus: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(6):613–623.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Erskine A, Morley S, Pearce S. Memory for pain: a review. Pain. 1990;41(3):255–265.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fredrickson BL, Kahneman D. Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Redelmeier DA, Kahneman D. Patient’s memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain. 1996;66(1):3–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Redelmeier DA, Katz J, Kahneman D. Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Pain. 2003;104:187–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morse J. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5:147–149. doi:10.1177/104973239500500201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Aita VA, Mcllvain HE, eds. An armchair adventure in case study research. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage; 1999.

  20. Kramer JR, Arney J, Chen J, et al. Patient-centered, comparative effectiveness of esophageal cancer screening: protocol for a comparative effectiveness research study to inform guidelines for evidence-based approach to screening and surveillance endoscopy. BMC Health Services Res. 2012;12:288.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2002:305–29.

  22. Gubrium JF, Holstein JA. The New Language of Qualitative Method. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Waitzken H. The Politics of Medical Encounters: How Patients and Doctors Deal with Social Problems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Larkins AS, Windsor AVC, Trebble TM. An evaluation of patient attitudes to the gastroenterology outpatient experience. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25:44–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Street RL, Makoul G, Arora NK, et al. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Counsel. 2009;74(3):295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Naik AD. On the road to patient-centeredness. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013;173(3):218–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Naik AD, Kallen M, Walder A, et al. Improving hypertension control in diabetes: the effect of collaborative and proactive health communication. Circulation. 2008;117(11):1361–1368.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McEntire J, Sahota J, Hynes T, et al. An evaluation of patient attitudes to colonoscopy and the importance of endoscopist interaction and the endoscopy environment to satisfaction and value. BMC Health Services Res. 2013;13:22.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Naik AD, Hinojosa-Lindsey M, Arney J, et al. Choosing Wisely and the perceived drivers of endoscopy use. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(7):753–755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Manary MP, Boulding W, Staelin R, et al. The patient experience and health outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:201–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Patient Experience Measures from the CAHPS Clinician and Group Surveys; 2012. www.cahps.ahrq.gov/clinician_group/cgsurvey/patientexperiencemeasurescgsurveys.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2013.

  32. Essink-Bot ML, Kruijshaar ME, Bac DJ, et al. Different perceptions of the burden of upper GI endoscopy: an empirical study in three patient groups. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1309–1318.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gordon HS, Street RL Jr, Sharf BF, et al. Racial differences in trust and lung cancer patients’ perceptions of physician communication. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:904–909.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. NIH Toolbox: For assessment of neurological and behavioral function. www.nihtoolbox.org. Accessed on June 3, 2013.

  35. Cook KF, Dunn W, Griffith JW, et al. Pain assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013;80:S49. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b012e3182872e80.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Development of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screen adherence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6:825–832.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NIH grant RC4CA155844 awarded to Dr. El-Serag and the Texas Digestive Disease Center NIH DK58338. Additional resources and support was provided by the Houston VA Health Services Research & Development Center of Innovation (CIN 13-413) and American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award (J.K. Hou). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or National Institutes of Health. Dr. Arney received support from the VA Office of Academic Affiliations Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Health Services Research.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hashem B. El-Serag.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arney, J., Hinojosa-Lindsey, M., Street, R.L. et al. Patient Experiences with Surveillance Endoscopy: A Qualitative Study. Dig Dis Sci 59, 1378–1385 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3035-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3035-4

Keywords

Navigation