Post-endoscopic procedure satisfaction scores: Can we improve?

AIM: To organize post-procedure satisfaction data into a useful reference and analyze patient-centered parameters to find trends that influence patient satisfaction. METHODS: A robust database of two cohorts of outpatients that underwent an endoscopic procedure at Georgetown University Hospital at two separate three-month intervals ranging from November 2012 to January 2013 and November 2015 to January 2016 was compiled. Time of year was identical to control for weather/seasonal issues that may have contributed to the patient experience. The variables recorded included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), type of procedure, indication for procedure, time of the procedure, length of the procedure, type of prep used, endoscopist, satisfactory score, and comments/reasons for score. For continuous variables, differences in averages were tested by two sample t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and ANOVA as appropriate. For categorical variables, differences in proportions between two groups were tested by χ(2) test. Correlation test and linear regression analyses were conducted to examine relationships between length of procedure and continuous predictors. A P value < 0.05 used to indicate statistically significant relationship. RESULTS: The primary outcome of this study was to assess if telephone outreach after an endoscopic intervention was a satisfactory method of obtaining post-procedure satisfaction scores from patients at a tertiary care center. With the addition of post-procedure calls, instilled in January 2014, the response rate was 40.5% (508/1256 patients) from a prior completion rate of 3.4% (31/918) with the mail out survey initially. There was a statistically significant improved response rate pre and post intervention with P < 0001. The secondary outcome of this study was to assess if we could use predictive analytics to identify independent predictors of procedure length, such as gender, age, type of procedure, time of procedure, or BMI. The combined pre and post intervention data was used in order to optimize the power to identify independent predictors of procedure length. The total number of patient’s data analyzed was 2174. There was no statistically significant difference in procedure length between males and females with P value 0.5282. However, there was a small (1 min), but statistically significant difference (P = 0.0185) in procedure length based on the time of day the procedure took place, with afternoon procedures having a longer duration than morning procedures. The type of procedure was an independent predictor of procedure length as demonstrated with P value < 0.0001. There is a statistically significant correlation between age and procedure length, although it is only a weak relationship with a correlation coefficient < 0.3. Contrary to patient age, BMI did not have a statistically significant correlation with procedure length (P = 0.9993), which was also confirmed by linear regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study proves calling patients after endoscopy improves post-procedure satisfaction response rates and changing procedural time allotment based on patient characteristics would not change endoscopic workflow.