Dataset Information

Patient satisfaction with outpatient hysteroscopy versus day case hysteroscopy: randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare outpatient hysteroscopy with day case hysteroscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and acceptability.

Setting

Gynaecology clinic of a teaching hospital.

Participants

100 women.

Design and interventions

Patients were randomly allocated to outpatient hysteroscopy or day case hysteroscopy provided they had no preference for either procedure.

Main outcome measures

Satisfaction rate, requirements for postoperative analgesia, speed of recovery, time away from home, and time off work.

Results

The outpatient group recovered preoperative fitness more quickly than the day case group (2 days (range 1-2.7) versus 3 days (2-4), P<0.05). After the procedure, the outpatient group were also fully mobile more quickly than the day case group (0 minutes (0-5) versus 105 minutes (80-120), P<0.001). Requirements for postoperative analgesia were similar in both groups. Overall, 78% of patients considered that the pain from outpatient hysteroscopy was less than that usually experienced during menstruation. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (83.6% in the outpatient group versus 77.0% in the day case group).

Conclusions

Outpatient hysteroscopy and day case hysteroscopy were equally acceptable to patients. Patients recovered significantly more quickly from outpatient hysteroscopy than from day case hysteroscopy.

SUBMITTER: Kremer C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC27273 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient satisfaction with outpatient hysteroscopy versus day case hysteroscopy: randomised controlled trial.

Kremer C C Duffy S S Moroney M M

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20000101 7230

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare outpatient hysteroscopy with day case hysteroscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and acceptability.<h4>Setting</h4>Gynaecology clinic of a teaching hospital.<h4>Participants</h4>100 women.<h4>Design and interventions</h4>Patients were randomly allocated to outpatient hysteroscopy or day case hysteroscopy provided they had no preference for either procedure.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Satisfaction rate, requirements for postoperative analgesia, speed of recovery, ...[more]

PMID: 10650023

Similar Datasets

Project description:There are no universally accepted guidelines for the follow-up of individuals with cutaneous melanoma. Furthermore, to date, there have been no randomised controlled trials of different models of melanoma follow-up care. This randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of GP-led melanoma follow-up on patient satisfaction, follow-up guideline compliance, anxiety and depression, as well as health status.A randomised controlled trial of GP-led follow-up of cutaneous melanoma was conducted over a period of 1 year with assessment by self-completed questionnaires and review of general practice-held medical records at baseline and 12 months later. It took place in 35 general practices in North-east Scotland. Subjects were 142 individuals (51.4% women 48.6% men; mean (s.d.) age 59.2 (15.2) years previously treated for cutaneous melanoma and free of recurrent disease. The intervention consisted of protocol-driven melanoma reviews in primary care, conducted by trained GPs and supported by centralised recall, rapid access pathway to secondary care and a patient information booklet. The main outcome measure was patient satisfaction measured by questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were adherence to guidelines, health status measured by Short Form-36 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.There were significant improvements in 5 out of 15 aspects of patient satisfaction during the study year in those receiving GP-led melanoma follow-up (all P<or=0.01). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with 7 out of 15 aspects of care at follow-up after adjustment for potential confounders. There was significantly greater adherence to guidelines in the intervention group during the study year. There was no significant difference in health status or anxiety and depression between intervention and control groups at either baseline or outcome.GP-led follow-up is feasible, engenders greater satisfaction in those patients who receive it, permits closer adherence to guidelines and does not result in adverse effects on health status or anxiety and depression when compared with traditional hospital-based follow-up for melanoma.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of day-case stapes surgery on hearing results, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and complications rates, compared with inpatient stapes surgery.Study designA single-center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary referral center.MethodsOne hundred twelve adult patients planned for primary or revision stapes surgery were randomly assigned to either the day-case or inpatient treatment group. The effect on hearing outcomes (primarily), hearing benefits, quality of life, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, and causes of crossover or readmission (secondarily) were assessed using auditory evaluations, questionnaires, and patients' charts over a follow-up period of 1 year.ResultsAudiometric measurements and postoperative success rates were not different between the inpatient and day-case group. There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding the overall quality of life (QoL) (HUI3), disease-specific QoL (GHSI), change in postoperative health status (GBI), and postoperative complications rate. We found a high patient satisfaction toward the day-case approach. Six patients allocated to the inpatient group requested same-day discharge. Of the day-case patients, there was a crossover rate to inpatient care of 38% (20 patients), mainly due to postoperative nausea and vomiting (25%), vertigo (20%), or dizziness (40%).ConclusionWe found no significant differences in outcomes of audiometric measurements, QoL, patient satisfaction and postoperative complications following day-case, and inpatient stapes surgery. Therefore, stapes surgery in a day-case setting seems to be a feasible approach in terms of postoperative outcome, safety, and desirability when taking patient selection and surgical planning into account. Besides this, the familiarity with a day-case approach of both patient and the surgical team, will increase the acceptance and feasibility of day-case stapes surgery.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether direct access to hospital review initiated by patients with rheumatoid arthritis would result in improved clinical and psychological outcome, reduced overall use of healthcare resources, and greater satisfaction with care than seen in patients receiving regular review initiated by a rheumatologist.DesignTwo year randomised controlled trial extended to six years.SettingRheumatology outpatient department in teaching hospital.Participants209 consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis for over two years; 68 (65%) in the direct access group and 52 (50%) in the control group completed the study (P = 0.04).Main outcome measuresClinical outcomepain, disease activity, early morning stiffness, inflammatory indices, disability, grip strength, range of movement in joints, and bone erosion. Psychological status: anxiety, depression, helplessness, self efficacy, satisfaction, and confidence in the system. Number of visits to hospital physician and general practitioner for arthritis.ResultsParticipants were well matched at baseline. After six years there was only one significant difference between the two groups for the 14 clinical outcomes measured (deterioration in range of movement in elbow was less in direct access patients). There were no significant differences between groups for median change in psychological status. Satisfaction and confidence in the system were significantly higher in the direct access group at two, four, and six years: confidence 9.8 v 8.4, 9.4 v 8.0, 8.7 v 6.9; satisfaction 9.3 v 8.3, 9.3 v 7.7, 8.9 v 7.1 (all P < 0.02). Patients in the direct access group had 38% fewer hospital appointments (median 8 v 13, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsOver six years, patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated their reviews through direct access were clinically and psychologically at least as well as patients having traditional reviews initiated by a physician. They requested fewer appointments, found direct access more acceptable, and had more than a third fewer medical appointments. This radical responsive management could be tested in other chronic diseases.

Project description:Growth of the foreign-born population in the U.S. has led to increasing numbers of limited-English-proficient (LEP) patients. Innovative medical interpreting strategies, including remote simultaneous medical interpreting (RSMI), have arisen to address the language barrier. This study evaluates the impact of interpreting method on patient satisfaction.1,276 English-, Spanish-, Mandarin-, and Cantonese-speaking patients attending the primary care clinic and emergency department of a large New York City municipal hospital were screened for enrollment in a randomized controlled trial. Language-discordant patients were randomized to RSMI or usual and customary (U&C) interpreting. Patients with language-concordant providers received usual care. Demographic and patient satisfaction questionnaires were administered to all participants.541 patients were language-concordant with their providers and not randomized; 371 were randomized to RSMI, 167 of whom were exposed to RSMI; and 364 were randomized to U&C, 198 of whom were exposed to U&C. Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely than those with U&C to think doctors treated them with respect (RSMI 71%, U&C 64%, p < 0.05), but they did not differ in other measures of physician communication/care. In a linear regression analysis, exposure to RSMI was significantly associated with an increase in overall satisfaction with physician communication/care (beta 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.18, scale 0-1.0). Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely to think the interpreting method protected their privacy (RSMI 51%, U&C 38%, p < 0.05). Patients randomized to either arm of interpretation reported less comprehension and satisfaction than patients in language-concordant encounters.While not a substitute for language-concordant providers, RSMI can improve patient satisfaction and privacy among LEP patients. Implementing RSMI should be considered an important component of a multipronged approach to addressing language barriers in health care.

Project description:Postoperative pain and, in a more extended perspective, quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered the principal endpoints after day surgery. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol are a cornerstone of pain treatment after painful day surgery. Nevertheless, NSAIDs are not always sufficiently effective, have numerous contraindications, and consequently are not suitable in up to 25 % of all patients. Metamizole is a non-opioid compound with a favourable gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular profile compared to NSAIDs. The aim of this study is to assess if a combination of metamizole and paracetamol is non-inferior to a combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol in the treatment of acute postoperative pain at home after painful day case surgery. In addition, we aim to assess and compare quality of recovery (QOR) profiles of both groups.This is an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 200 patients undergoing elective haemorrhoid surgery, arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery, or inguinal hernia repair in a day care setting will be randomised to receive either a combination of metamizole and paracetamol (MP) or a combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol (IP). Participants will take study medication orally for 4 days. Primary endpoints are average postoperative pain intensity measured by an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale at postoperative day 1 and QOR profile measured by the Functional Recovery Index (FRI), the 1-item Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) index and the EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaire at days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14 and 28 postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include compliance with study medication, adverse effects of study medication, use of rescue medication and satisfaction with study medication, surgery and hospital care and telephone follow-up.This study will provide clinical evidence on the analgesic efficacy and safety of a combination of metamizole and paracetamol in treating postoperative pain at home after painful day surgery. This study may also provide an insight into QOR profile after four different types of surgery and into the interrelationship between three different instruments used to assess QOR.Recruitment is currently ongoing.European Union Clinical Trials Register 2015-003987-35 . Registered 10 November 2015.

Dataset Information

Patient satisfaction with outpatient hysteroscopy versus day case hysteroscopy: randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Setting

Participants

Design and interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patient satisfaction with outpatient hysteroscopy versus day case hysteroscopy: randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets