Background: Patient participation is associated with satisfaction and improved health‐related outcomes. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient participation is an underexplored area.Objective: To gain understanding on patients' experiences, attitudes and preferences concerning patient participation in the endoscopy pathway.Methods: Semi‐structured interviews with endoscopy patients (n = 17, female n = 8, male n = 9, ages 19‐80 years) were performed. Interview transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Participants were recruited by purposive sampling from an endoscopy unit in a Swedish university hospital. Inclusion:≥ 18 years, fluency in Swedish and recent experience of endoscopy at the unit.Results: Five generic categories emerged, two within the area of the patient's role, which was described as active or passive/included or excluded. Another three generic categories related to factors, critical to active participation, including organizational aspects, impressions of staff and individual circumstances were identified. In this context, patient participation described in the interviews was on a low to basic level, although sometimes reaching a higher level when staff ‘invited’ patients in decision making.Discussion: This study contributes to the understanding of patient participation in endoscopy. Patients are in an inferior position and need support from the staff for an active role in their care. Although there were variations on the perceived importance of different factors, a heavy responsibility lies on the endoscopy staff to acknowledge the patients' individual needs and to facilitate patient participation.Conclusions: Endoscopy staff has a key role in supporting patient participation. In endoscopy settings, patient participation is vulnerable to multiple factors.

RRH: Rural and Remote Health. Published article number: 7404 - Patient participation in tele-emergencies – experiences from healthcare professionals in northern rural Sweden

Background: Patient participation is advocated in various healthcare settings. Instruments for assessment and feedback have been developed to strengthen clinician-patient interaction. In an emergency department context, such instruments are still missing. The study aimed to develop and test an observation tool for emergency teams’ behaviour regarding patient involvement and collaboration. Methods: The development of the behavioural observation tool followed a systematic approach. The tool’s content was based on various data sources, i.e., published literature, interview and observational data, and expert consensus. An international expert panel reviewed the content and the rating scale and rated its importance for patient involvement and collaboration in a Delphi process. The feasibility and reliability of the tool were tested by trained observers using video recordings of simulated emergencies. Intraclass correlation (ICC) and Kappa-statistics were performed to test the tool’s inter-rater reliability. Results: The PIC-ET tool, a 22-item observation instrument was developed in which patient involvement and collaboration behaviours are rated from ‘no’ to ‘high’ using behavioural anchors. Expert agreement was obtained after three Delphi rounds on the tool content, the behavioural anchors and its importance for patient involvement and collaboration. The content validity was assessed as high, and the tool was found feasible for research. Overall inter-rater reliability was fair (Kappa 0.52). Conclusions: A novel tool for assessing emergency teams’ behaviour regarding patient involvement and collaboration is introduced. The tool’s psychometric properties were fair to good. Further validation of the PIC-ET tool is recommended for more robust evidence. Future adaptation to different contexts and areas of use, as well as further validity testing may be of value.

Background: In northern rural Sweden, telemedicine is used to improve access to healthcare and to provide patient-centered care. In emergency care during on-call hours, video-conference systems are used to connect the physicians to the rest of the team – creating ‘distributed teams’. Patient participation is a core competency for healthcare professionals. Knowledge about how distributed teamwork affects patient participation is missing. The aim was to investigate if and how teamwork affecting patient participation, as well as clinicians’ perceptions regarding shared decision-making differ between co-located and distributed emergency teams. Methods: In an observational study with a randomized cross-over design, healthcare professionals (n = 51) participated in authentic teams (n = 17) in two scripted simulated emergency scenarios with a standardized patient: one as a co-located team and the other as a distributed team. Team performances were filmed and observed by independent raters using the PIC-ET tool to rate patient participation behavior. The participants individually filled out the Dyadic OPTION questionnaire after the respective scenarios to measure perceptions of shared decision-making. Scores in both instruments were translated to percentage of a maximum score. The observational data between the two settings were compared using linear mixed-effects regression models and the self-reported questionnaire data were compared using one-way ANOVA. Neither the participants nor the observers were blinded to the allocations. Results: A significant difference in observer rated overall patient participation behavior was found, mean 51.1 (± 11.5) % for the co-located teams vs 44.7 (± 8.6) % for the distributed teams (p = 0.02). In the PIC-ET tool category ‘Sharing power’, the scores decreased from 14.4 (± 12.4) % in the co-located teams to 2 (± 4.4) % in the distributed teams (p = 0.001). Co-located teams scored in mean 60.5% (± 14.4) when self-assessing shared decision-making, vs 55.8% (± 15.1) in the distributed teams (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Team behavior enabling patient participation was found decreased in distributed teams, especially regarding sharing power with the patient. This finding was also mirrored in the self-assessments of the healthcare professionals. This study highlights the risk of an increased power asymmetry between patients and distributed emergency teams and can serve as a basis for further research, education, and quality improvement.

Introduction: Despite the increasing use of distributed healthcare teams, performance evaluation is largely lacking. This study examined rural emergency health care in Sweden to determine the effect of teams being either co-located or distributed with remote physicians accessible via telemedicine. Method: In this crossover study, 17 three-person teams were video recorded during co-located and distributed simulated scenarios. Team performance in the video recordings was evaluated using the TEAM instrument. Results: Co-located scenarios had significantly higher Total ratings for the instrument (items 1–11), in the teamwork domain (items 3–9), and in overall performance (item 12) compared with distributed scenarios (P < 0.005). Item-level analysis revealed that co-located teams were better at completing tasks on time (item 4) and showed greater adaptability to changing situations (item 7). Conclusions: The higher rating of the performance of co-located teams underscores the challenges facing distributed teams. Given that distributed healthcare teams are a reality in rural areas in northern Sweden, education and training must be adapted to address these challenges. This adaptation is crucial for ensuring high-quality patient care by distributed teams.

Background: Anal squamous cell carcinoma is a rare disease strongly associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) and preceded by the premalignant anal squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASIL). High-resolution anoscopy (HRA) using a colposcope is considered the gold standard for detecting and managing ASIL. Despite being recommended in current guidelines for anal cancer screening, HRA availability remains limited. Although generally well tolerated, concerns about follow-up adherence persist. We have developed an endoscopic technique using high-resolution flexible endoscopes for detection, resection, and screening of ASIL. Our previous research suggests that this method is effective and gentle, but patients’ experiences of this approach remain underexplored. The aim of this study was to explore patients’ experiences of endoscopic detection, treatment, and screening of anal squamous intraepithelial lesions. Method: A qualitative approach was used involving semi-structured interviews and abductive qualitative content analysis. The 32-item COREQ checklist guided the reporting of the study. All participants followed a standardized protocol for treatment and follow-up. Results: Analysis of 16 interviews (female n = 7, male n = 9, age 19–72 years) yielded four categories: a comforting encounter in an exposed situation (with four subcategories); impact on intimate relationships (with one subcategory); living with uncertainty (with four subcategories); and physical discomfort (with two subcategories). Conclusions: High-resolution endoscopy is a well-tolerated and effective diagnostic and therapeutic modality for ASIL. However, the psychological impact of HPV-related conditions highlights the need for appropriate psychosocial support. These findings underscore the importance of integrating patient-centered care principles into the implementation of novel diagnostic and therapeutic technologies.