Research Article Digital Recording and Documentation of Endoscopic Procedures: Do Patients and Doctors Think Alike? Nadav Willner, 1 Maya Peled-Raz, 2,3 Dan Shteinberg, 4 Michal Shteinberg, 5 Dean Keren, 6 and Tova Rainis 6 1 Internal Ward B, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, 47 Golomb St., Haifa, Israel 2 Te School of Public Health, International Center for Health, Law and Ethics, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel 3 Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel 4 Department of General Surgery, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, 47 Golomb St., Haifa, Israel 5 Pulmonology Institute and CF Center, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel 6 Gastroenterology Unit, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, 47 Golomb St., Haifa, Israel Correspondence should be addressed to Nadav Willner; nadav.willner@gmail.com Received 2 July 2016; Revised 2 November 2016; Accepted 6 November 2016 Academic Editor: Grigorios I. Leontiadis Copyright © 2016 Nadav Willner et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Aims and Methods. Conducting a survey study of a large number of patients and gastroenterologists aimed at identifying relevant predictors of interest in digital recording and documentation (DRD) of endoscopic procedures. Outpatients presenting to the endoscopy unit at our institution for an endoscopy examination were anonymously surveyed, regarding their views and opinions of a possible recording of the procedure. A parallel survey for gastroenterologists was conducted. Results. 417 patients and 62 gastroenterologists participated in two parallel surveys regarding DRD of endoscopic procedures. 66.4% of the patients expressed interest in digital documentation of their endoscopic procedure, with 90.5% of them requesting a copy. 43.6% of the physicians supported digital recording while 27.4% opposed it, with 48.4% opposing to making a copy of the recording available to the patient. No sociodemographic or background factors predicted patient’s interest in DRD. 66% of the physicians reported having recording facilities in their institutions, but only 43.6% of them stated performing recording. Having institutional guidelines for DRD was found to be the only signifcant predictor for routine recording. Conclusions. Our study exposes patients’ positive views of digital recording and documentation of endoscopic procedures. In contrast, physicians appear to be much more reluctant towards DRD and are centrally motivated by legal concerns when opposing DRD, as well as when supporting it. 1. Introduction Te feld of systematic digital recording and documentation (DRD) of endoscopic procedures is still in its infancy. DRD refers not only to the digital recording of the procedure itself but also to standardized assimilation of that digital informa- tion into the patient’s medical record (i.e., electronic medical record, EMR). In some medical centers it is common practice to archive digital photos of the procedure, in a manner that may be obtained by the patient himself, especially for anatom- ical landmarks, future surgical plan, or abnormal fndings. Nevertheless, there are no ofcial international guidelines. A PubMed search for the following keywords, “video recording,” “endoscopy,” or “digital records,” yields only few relevant studies, most of them addressing the issue mainly from the aspect of promoting quality indicators. Videotaping of the cecum is more convincing and efective than still photographs at confrming cecal intubation [1]. An additional study, aiming to calculate the accuracy of two photographs in confrming a complete colonoscopy, found a very low sensi- tivity and specifcity, the gold standard for proved completed colonoscopy being video documentation [2]. Rex et al. con- ducted a small pilot study, which recorded routine colono- scopies by seven colonoscopists, with and without their Hindawi Publishing Corporation Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Volume 2016, Article ID 2493470, 7 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2493470