Search in the Abstract Database

Search Abstracts 2016

* = Presenting author

P448 IBD nurse in patients’ health status assessment: data from a pilot study comparing ability of IBD nurse and gastroenterologist in using IBD clinical scores

F. Mocciaro*1, R. Di Mitri1, G. M. Pecoraro1, D. Scimeca2, G. Russo1, F. Bossa2, V. Costanza1, D. Varvara2, M. A. Profita1, G. Profeta1, G. Martino2

1ARNAS Civico-Di Cristina-Benfratelli Hospital, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Palermo, Italy, 2Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital, IRCCS, Division of Gastroenterology, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy


Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are lifelong chronic diseases that require a multidisciplinary team to optimise patients’ care. In this scenario, IBD nurses can play a strategic role in both the assessment and management of IBD patients, especially in those affected by severe disease that requires biologic treatment. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the role of IBD nurse in patients’ health status assessment (of those treated with biologics) by filling-out IBD clinical scores.


From July to October 2015, all consecutive IBD patients treated with biologics were enrolled in 2 referral centres for IBD. For each patient, both gastroenterologists and nurses filled-out separately an IBD clinical score depending on the type of disease: the Harvey–Bradshaw Index (HBI) for Crohn’s disease (CD) patients and the partial Mayo score for ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. All data were recorded in an electronic database for the final analysis.


At the end of the study, 78 patients were enrolled: 42 male (54%) and 36 female (46%). Further, 41 patients were affected by CD (53%), and 37 by UC (47%). The median value of HBI was 4 (range 1–13) in those evaluated by the gastroenterologist and 6 (0–14) in those evaluated by the IBD nurse (p = ns). No differences were recorded through the different items of the HBI score (median values were reported): patients’ well-being (1 vs 0, p = ns); abdominal pain (0 vs 0, p = ns); number of liquid or soft stools in the previous day (3 vs 3, p = ns); abdominal mass (0 vs 0, p = ns); and complications (0 vs 0, p = ns). Considering UC patients, the median value of partial Mayo score was 1.5 (05–) in those evaluated by the gastroenterologist and 1.5 (07–) in those evaluated by the IBD nurse (p = ns). No differences were recorded through the different items of the partial Mayo score (median values): stool frequency per day (1.5 vs 1, p = ns); rectal bleeding (0 vs 0, p = ns); and global assessment (0 vs 0, p = ns).


Our study shows as IBD nurses are able to determine correctly the current health status of IBD patients through IBD clinical scores use. This can be a solid basis for evaluating the response to treatment and/or for planning the appropriate therapeutic interventions, helping gastroenterologist in improving patients’ care.