Evaluating administrative workflow efficiency, procedural scheduling, and patient preparation in endoscopic services: a systematic review of primary research involving endoscopy specialists and medical secretaries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65759/97m26z16Keywords:
Endoscopy, administrative workflow, medical secretaries, scheduling, patient navigationAbstract
Endoscopic service performance depends on coordinated administration, appropriate scheduling, and effective patient preparation. Disruptions in these stages waste capacity and delay completed examinations. This review evaluated primary research addressing workflow efficiency, procedural scheduling, and preparation, with attention to endoscopy specialists and administrative personnel. Ten original articles published through 31 May 2026 were included. Eligible interventions addressed booking, staff training, workflow redesign, appointment support, or preparation education. Outcomes included response times, facility duration, room turnover, attendance, colonoscopy completion, and bowel cleanliness. Cross-site scheduling reduced average telephone answer time from more than 100 to 38 seconds. Clerical training increased self-rated booking confidence from 8.11 to 8.71 out of ten in 43 delegates. Workflow redesign reduced facility duration from 196.1 to 172.5 minutes, and reassigned patient transport reduced turnover from 18.51 to 14.25 minutes. Text navigation reduced nonattendance from 14% to 8% in one randomized study; another trial found no improvement in attendance accompanied by good or excellent preparation. Telephone re-education increased adequate preparation from 70.3% to 81.6%. Coordinated workflow interventions and targeted patient support improved selected service outcomes. Digital reminder effects varied across settings and existing routine patient support. Data measuring medical secretaries’ contributions remained limited, and uncontrolled operational evaluations restricted causal interpretation.
References
1. Valori R, Cortas G, de Lange T, et al. Performance measures for endoscopy services: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019;7(1):21–44. doi: 10.1177/2050640618810242.
2. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy. 2017;49(4):378–397. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-103411.
3. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—Update 2019. Endoscopy. 2019;51(8):775–794. doi: 10.1055/a-0959-0505.
4. Jacobson BC, Anderson JC, Burke CA, et al. Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2025;101(4):702–732. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2025.02.010.
5. Chang CW, Shih SC, Wang HY, et al. Meta-analysis: the effect of patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(6):E646–E652. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1392365.
6. Guo X, Li X, Wang Z, et al. Reinforced education improves the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231888.
7. Dougherty MK, Brenner AT, Crockett SD, et al. Evaluation of interventions intended to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1645–1658. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637.
8. Fairchild EM, Lambert KL, Talley MI, et al. Cross-site scheduling of endoscopic procedures improves efficiency while maintaining patient safety. J Healthc Qual. 2016;38(1):24–33. doi: 10.1097/01.JHQ.0000462681.24888.da.
9. Dawson M, Rankin M, Smith G. Improving endoscopy unit efficacy and retention through the provision of role-specific admin and clerical training. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2024;15(5):424–430. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2024-102642.
10. Kaushal NK, Chang K, Lee JG, Muthusamy VR. Using efficiency analysis and targeted intervention to improve operational performance and achieve cost savings in the endoscopy center. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(4):637–645. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.10.037.
11. Kidambi TD, Trieu H, Lilienstein B, et al. LEAN methodology to improve endoscopy unit efficiency in a multi-subspecialty ambulatory surgery center: a pilot study. Cureus. 2024;16(9):e69447. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69447.
12. Post Z, Theivaraaj P, Chapman CG, et al. Boosting efficiency in the endoscopy suite: integrating team workflows improves productivity and minimizes cost. Gastrointest Endosc. 2025;101(2):358–364. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2024.07.008.
13. Mahmud N, Asch DA, Sung J, et al. Effect of text messaging on bowel preparation and appointment attendance for outpatient colonoscopy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(1):e2034553. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34553.
14. Solonowicz O, Stier M, Kim K, et al. Digital navigation improves no-show rates and bowel preparation quality for patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized controlled quality improvement study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2022;56(2):166–172. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001497.
15. Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L, et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: a prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut. 2014;63(1):125–130. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304292.
16. DeGroff A, Schroy PC 3rd, Morrissey KG, et al. Patient navigation for colonoscopy completion: results of an RCT. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(3):363–372. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.05.010.
17. Coronado GD, Petrik AF, Thompson JH, et al. Patient navigation to improve colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test result: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2025;178(5):645–654. doi: 10.7326/ANNALS-24-01885.
18. Berg B, Denton B, Nelson H, et al. A discrete event simulation model to evaluate operational performance of a colonoscopy suite. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(3):380–387. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09345890.
19. Berg BP, Murr M, Chermak D, et al. Estimating the cost of no-shows and evaluating the effects of mitigation strategies. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(8):976–985. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13478194.
20. Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C, et al. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(1):79–88. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.004.
21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
22. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6890.
