Post-endoscopic procedure satisfaction scores: Can we improve?

Table 1 Comparison of response rate between pre and post intervention

Characteristics	Pre intervention, n = 918	Post intervention, n = 1256	P value
Response rate (satisfaction score)	31 (3.4%)	508 (40.5%)	< 0.0001

Table 2 Examining gender and time of procedure as independent predictors of procedure length

				Time of procedure
	Female, n = 1162	Male, n = 1012	P value	AM, n = 1089	PM, n = 1084	P value
Procedure length	20.6 ± 12.1	20.9 ± 12.6	0.5282	20.1 ± 11.8	21.3 ± 12.8	0.0185

Table 3 Comparing procedure type with length of procedure

	Procedure
	Colonoscopy, n = 981	EGD, n = 714	EUS, n = 301	ERCP, n = 116	Enteroscopy, n = 36	Flex sig, n = 20	Ileoscopy, n = 6	P value
Procedure length	22.1 ± 10.1	18.6 ± 13.1	17.4 ± 10.7	23.0 ± 12.7	49.2 ± 19.3	14.8 ± 9.7	18.8 ± 15.2	< 0.0001

EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Table 4 Mean age, body mass index, and procedure length

Variable	n	Mean	Std Dev
Age	2174	57.97286	15.84377
Body mass index	2030	27.18420	7.01924
Length of procedure	2174	20.71665	12.31821

Table 5 Strength of relationship between age or body mass index and procedure length

	Pearson correlation coefficients, n = 2174
	Age	Length of procedure
Age	1.00000	0.07781
		0.0003
Length of procedure	0.07781	1.00000
	BMI	Length of procedure
	0.0003
BMI	1.00000	-0.00002
		0.9993
Length of procedure	-0.00002	1.00000
	0.9993

BMI: Body mass index.