Randomised clinical trial: a 'nudge' strategy to modify endoscopic sedation practice.
AffiliationDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Beaumont Hospital Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland Medical School, Dublin, Ireland.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationRandomised clinical trial: a 'nudge' strategy to modify endoscopic sedation practice. 2011:notAliment Pharmacol Ther
JournalAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics
AbstractBackground In behavioural economics, a 'nudge' describes configuration of a choice to encourage a certain action without taking away freedom of choice. Aim To determine the impact of a 'nudge' strategy - prefilling either 3 mL or 5 mL syringes with midazolam - on endoscopic sedation practice. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing sedation for EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. On alternate weeks, midazolam was prefilled in either 3 mL or 5 mL syringes. Preprocedure sedation was administered by the endoscopist to achieve moderate conscious sedation; dosages were at the discretion of the endoscopist. Meperidine was not prefilled. Results Overall, 120 patients received sedation for EGD [59 (5 mL), 61 (3 mL)] and 86 patients were sedated for colonoscopy [38 (5 mL), 48 (3 mL)]. For EGDs, average midazolam dose was significantly higher in the 5-mL group (5.2 mg) vs. 3-mL group (3.3 mg), (P < 0.0001); for colonoscopies, average midazolam dose was also significantly higher in the 5-mL group (5.1 mg) vs. 3-mL group (3.3 mg), (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in mean meperidine dose (42.1 mg vs. 42.8 mg, P = 0.9) administered to both colonoscopy groups. No adverse sedation-related events occurred; no patient required reversal of sedation. Conclusions These findings demonstrate that 'nudge' strategies may hold promise in modifying endoscopic sedation practice. Further research is required to explore the utility of 'nudges' in impacting other aspects of endoscopic practice.