Audit of sedated versus unsedated gastroscopy: Do patients notice a difference?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Unsedated diagnostic gastroscopy has become widely accepted as a diagnostic procedure which avoids the risk of an anaesthetic. It also provides advantages for patients and hospitals in converting the procedure to an ambulatory care investigation. Patient perception of the procedure can sometimes differ from that of medical and nursing staff. We have decided to report our usual clinical practice by auditing 100 consecutive patients undergoing this procedure in a large rural private hospital. Patient tolerance was analyzed in various categories including degree of comfort, degree of pain, ease of breathing and willingness to repeat the procedure under the same conditions. The perceived comfort rating was compared between the patient, the endoscopist and the endoscopy nurse. A total of 100 consecutive patients were evaluated; 55 chose to be sedated and 45 were unsedated. Of the 100 patients tested, 88% stated they would have the procedure the same way if a repeat procedure was required. There was no significant difference between male/female or sedated/unsedated patients. The most important consideration for patients who chose to have the procedure unsedated was the ability to speak to the endoscopist immediately post-procedure. Patient rating of pain was not significantly different between the sedated and unsedated groups. There was no significant difference in the independent assessment by the endoscopist and the nurse with respect to patient comfort in both the sedated and the unsedated groups. However, their assessment differed significantly from the patients own rating, as endoscopists and gastrointestinal (GI) nurses rated the patient degree of comfort as higher than the patients themselves (P < 0.01 for doctor/patient and nurse/patient score, Student's t-test). No complications were reported in either group of patients during the audit. Unsedated diagnostic gastroscopy is perceived to be an acceptable alternative to a sedated procedure by the majority of patients. Patients rate the procedure as more uncomfortable than their health care professionals, but the majority of patients would still have the repeat procedure the same way.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: