Comparisons of screening colonoscopy performed by a nurse practitioner and gastroenterologists: A single-center randomized controlled trial

Michele Limoges-Gonzalez, Nirmal S Mann, Amar Al-Juburi, David Tseng, John Inadomi, Lorenzo Rossaro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Several barriers to colorectal cancer screening have been identified including limited access to trained endoscopists and highlight insufficient capacity to meet projected demand for colonoscopies. Two European studies have found that nonphysician providers can perform colonoscopies as safely and accurately as physicians. Training nurse practitioners (NP) to perform colonoscopy may be an effective strategy to increase access. The goal of this study was to compare accuracy, safety, and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy performed by board certified gastroenterologists (GI-MD) and a gastroenterology trained nurse practitioner (GI-NP). A consecutive sample of average risk participants referred for screening colonoscopy was randomized to have their procedure performed by either a GI-MD (n = 100) or a GI-NP (n = 50). Participants completed a preprocedure and postprocedure questionnaire. Endoscopists completed a postprocedure questionnaire. Cecal intubation rates, duration of procedure, sedative, and analgesic use, and patient reported procedural pain scores were equivalent among the groups. The GI-NP group had a higher adenoma detection rate compared with the combined GI-MD groups (42% and 17%, respectively, p = .0001) and a higher satisfaction score when compared with the combined GI-MD groups (mean 5.9 ± 13.81 and 8.6 ± 16.11, respectively, p = .042; visual analog scale 0-100 mm, "0" = completely satisfied, "100" = completely dissatisfied). There were no immediate complications reported in any group. The properly trained GI-NP in our study performed screening colonoscopy as safely, accurately, and satisfactorily as the GI-MDs. Using well-trained NPs for screening colonoscopy can be an effective strategy to increase access to colorectal screening.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)210-216
Number of pages7
JournalGastroenterology Nursing
Volume34
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

Nurse Practitioners
Colonoscopy
Randomized Controlled Trials
Gastroenterology
Gastroenterologists
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Visual Analog Scale
Patient Satisfaction
Early Detection of Cancer
Intubation
Adenoma
Analgesics
Colorectal Neoplasms
Physicians
Safety
Pain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Advanced and Specialized Nursing
  • Gastroenterology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparisons of screening colonoscopy performed by a nurse practitioner and gastroenterologists : A single-center randomized controlled trial. / Limoges-Gonzalez, Michele; Mann, Nirmal S; Al-Juburi, Amar; Tseng, David; Inadomi, John; Rossaro, Lorenzo.

In: Gastroenterology Nursing, Vol. 34, No. 3, 05.2011, p. 210-216.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b73d23d7d85446d08f4cf798ae9cb3df,
title = "Comparisons of screening colonoscopy performed by a nurse practitioner and gastroenterologists: A single-center randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Several barriers to colorectal cancer screening have been identified including limited access to trained endoscopists and highlight insufficient capacity to meet projected demand for colonoscopies. Two European studies have found that nonphysician providers can perform colonoscopies as safely and accurately as physicians. Training nurse practitioners (NP) to perform colonoscopy may be an effective strategy to increase access. The goal of this study was to compare accuracy, safety, and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy performed by board certified gastroenterologists (GI-MD) and a gastroenterology trained nurse practitioner (GI-NP). A consecutive sample of average risk participants referred for screening colonoscopy was randomized to have their procedure performed by either a GI-MD (n = 100) or a GI-NP (n = 50). Participants completed a preprocedure and postprocedure questionnaire. Endoscopists completed a postprocedure questionnaire. Cecal intubation rates, duration of procedure, sedative, and analgesic use, and patient reported procedural pain scores were equivalent among the groups. The GI-NP group had a higher adenoma detection rate compared with the combined GI-MD groups (42{\%} and 17{\%}, respectively, p = .0001) and a higher satisfaction score when compared with the combined GI-MD groups (mean 5.9 ± 13.81 and 8.6 ± 16.11, respectively, p = .042; visual analog scale 0-100 mm, {"}0{"} = completely satisfied, {"}100{"} = completely dissatisfied). There were no immediate complications reported in any group. The properly trained GI-NP in our study performed screening colonoscopy as safely, accurately, and satisfactorily as the GI-MDs. Using well-trained NPs for screening colonoscopy can be an effective strategy to increase access to colorectal screening.",
author = "Michele Limoges-Gonzalez and Mann, {Nirmal S} and Amar Al-Juburi and David Tseng and John Inadomi and Lorenzo Rossaro",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1097/SGA.0b013e31821ab5e6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "210--216",
journal = "Gastroenterology Nursing",
issn = "1042-895X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparisons of screening colonoscopy performed by a nurse practitioner and gastroenterologists

T2 - A single-center randomized controlled trial

AU - Limoges-Gonzalez, Michele

AU - Mann, Nirmal S

AU - Al-Juburi, Amar

AU - Tseng, David

AU - Inadomi, John

AU - Rossaro, Lorenzo

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Several barriers to colorectal cancer screening have been identified including limited access to trained endoscopists and highlight insufficient capacity to meet projected demand for colonoscopies. Two European studies have found that nonphysician providers can perform colonoscopies as safely and accurately as physicians. Training nurse practitioners (NP) to perform colonoscopy may be an effective strategy to increase access. The goal of this study was to compare accuracy, safety, and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy performed by board certified gastroenterologists (GI-MD) and a gastroenterology trained nurse practitioner (GI-NP). A consecutive sample of average risk participants referred for screening colonoscopy was randomized to have their procedure performed by either a GI-MD (n = 100) or a GI-NP (n = 50). Participants completed a preprocedure and postprocedure questionnaire. Endoscopists completed a postprocedure questionnaire. Cecal intubation rates, duration of procedure, sedative, and analgesic use, and patient reported procedural pain scores were equivalent among the groups. The GI-NP group had a higher adenoma detection rate compared with the combined GI-MD groups (42% and 17%, respectively, p = .0001) and a higher satisfaction score when compared with the combined GI-MD groups (mean 5.9 ± 13.81 and 8.6 ± 16.11, respectively, p = .042; visual analog scale 0-100 mm, "0" = completely satisfied, "100" = completely dissatisfied). There were no immediate complications reported in any group. The properly trained GI-NP in our study performed screening colonoscopy as safely, accurately, and satisfactorily as the GI-MDs. Using well-trained NPs for screening colonoscopy can be an effective strategy to increase access to colorectal screening.

AB - Several barriers to colorectal cancer screening have been identified including limited access to trained endoscopists and highlight insufficient capacity to meet projected demand for colonoscopies. Two European studies have found that nonphysician providers can perform colonoscopies as safely and accurately as physicians. Training nurse practitioners (NP) to perform colonoscopy may be an effective strategy to increase access. The goal of this study was to compare accuracy, safety, and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy performed by board certified gastroenterologists (GI-MD) and a gastroenterology trained nurse practitioner (GI-NP). A consecutive sample of average risk participants referred for screening colonoscopy was randomized to have their procedure performed by either a GI-MD (n = 100) or a GI-NP (n = 50). Participants completed a preprocedure and postprocedure questionnaire. Endoscopists completed a postprocedure questionnaire. Cecal intubation rates, duration of procedure, sedative, and analgesic use, and patient reported procedural pain scores were equivalent among the groups. The GI-NP group had a higher adenoma detection rate compared with the combined GI-MD groups (42% and 17%, respectively, p = .0001) and a higher satisfaction score when compared with the combined GI-MD groups (mean 5.9 ± 13.81 and 8.6 ± 16.11, respectively, p = .042; visual analog scale 0-100 mm, "0" = completely satisfied, "100" = completely dissatisfied). There were no immediate complications reported in any group. The properly trained GI-NP in our study performed screening colonoscopy as safely, accurately, and satisfactorily as the GI-MDs. Using well-trained NPs for screening colonoscopy can be an effective strategy to increase access to colorectal screening.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958791385&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958791385&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SGA.0b013e31821ab5e6

DO - 10.1097/SGA.0b013e31821ab5e6

M3 - Article

C2 - 21637086

AN - SCOPUS:79958791385

VL - 34

SP - 210

EP - 216

JO - Gastroenterology Nursing

JF - Gastroenterology Nursing

SN - 1042-895X

IS - 3

ER -