Literature DB >> 10396473

Is follow up by specialists routinely needed after elective surgery? A controlled trial.

J Bailey1, M Roland, C Roberts.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of planned specialist follow up appointments after elective inpatient surgery.
DESIGN: This was a controlled trial, using repeated alternate allocation of time periods to the two study groups. Group 1: Planned outpatient follow up 6-12 weeks after surgery. Group 2: No planned follow up: additional written information for patients and general practitioners.
SETTING: A district general hospital in the north west of England. PARTICIPANTS: 264 patients listed for one of: transurethral resection of the prostate, varicose vein surgery, cholecystectomy (open or laparoscopic), inguinal herniorraphy (open or laparoscopic). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health status, complications, return to normal activity, patient satisfaction, use and costs of primary and secondary care in the 12 weeks after surgery. MAIN
RESULTS: Data were available for 212 (80%) of eligible patients. Thirty eight per cent of patients in the "no planned follow up" group were in fact seen in outpatients after their discharge. Intention to treat analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the groups for health status, complications, or time to return to normal activity. Patients in the "no planned follow up" group had significantly fewer hospital visits and costs (mean difference in visits 0.51, 95% confidence intervals 0.39 to 0.69; mean difference in hospital costs 12.75 Pounds, 9.75 Pounds to 15.50 Pounds). There were fewer primary care staff contacts and costs in the "no planned follow up" group, although this difference was not significant (mean difference = 0.61 visits, -0.13 to 1.33 visits; primary care costs difference 8.37 Pounds, -1.31 Pounds to 18.73 Pounds). Patients in the "no planned follow up group" had significantly reduced patient travel costs (mean difference 4.84 Pounds, 3.44 Pounds to 6.22 Pounds). Eighty nine (42%) patients would prefer to be followed up by both their hospital doctor and GP; 53 (25%) patients would prefer to be followed up by the hospital doctor only. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their preferences for follow up. The majority of GPs agreed with the statement that a policy of no follow up at hospital outpatients for each of the six surgical procedures would increase their workload.
CONCLUSIONS: Planned outpatient appointments after uncomplicated surgery seem to be neither necessary nor cost effective. A policy of "no planned follow up" results in no increase in primary care costs, and savings in hospital and patient costs. However, many patients expected and wanted to be seen again by their surgeon and GPs were concerned that a "no follow up" policy would result in an increase in workload.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10396473      PMCID: PMC1756834          DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  21 in total

1.  Profiling outpatient workload: practice variations between consultant firms and hospitals in south west England.

Authors:  A C Faulkner; I M Harvey; T J Peters; D J Sharp; S J Frankel
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Attitudes to follow-up after uncomplicated surgery--hospital out-patients or general practitioner?

Authors:  T T McCormack; J A Collier; P D Abel; C D Collins; W N Ritchie
Journal:  Health Trends       Date:  1984-05

3.  General practice follow-up of patients discharged from hospital.

Authors:  J Temple
Journal:  Practitioner       Date:  1988-02-08

4.  Surgical discharge summaries: improving the record.

Authors:  D C Adams; J B Bristol; K R Poskitt
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Routine inguinal hernia repair in the pediatric population: is office follow-up necessary?

Authors:  J Koulack; P Fitzgerald; D A Gillis; M Giacomantonio
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.545

6.  Are follow-up consultations at medical outpatient departments futile?

Authors:  G N Marsh
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1982-04-17

7.  A question of numbers.

Authors:  I S Loudon
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1976-04-03       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Patients' and general practitioners' satisfaction with information given on discharge from hospital: audit of a new information card.

Authors:  D A Sandler; C Heaton; S T Garner; J R Mitchell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-12-16

9.  Community surveillance of complications after hernia surgery.

Authors:  I S Bailey; S E Karran; K Toyn; P Brough; C Ranaboldo; S J Karran
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-02-22

10.  Satisfying patients' needs for surgical information.

Authors:  M H Edwards
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  6 in total

1.  Ambulatory care provided by office-based specialists in the United States.

Authors:  Jose M Valderas; Barbara Starfield; Christopher B Forrest; Bonnie Sibbald; Martin Roland
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Is there a need for postoperative follow-up after routine urogynaecological procedures? Patients will self-present if they have problems.

Authors:  A G Bateman; H Neilens; C A Gericke; J George; R M Freeman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  International guidelines for groin hernia management.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  The effect of mobile app home monitoring on number of in-person visits following ambulatory surgery: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kathleen A Armstrong; Peter C Coyte; R Sacha Bhatia; John L Semple
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2015-06-03

5.  Cost-effectiveness of an internet-based perioperative care programme to enhance postoperative recovery in gynaecological patients: economic evaluation alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

Authors:  Esther V A Bouwsma; Judith E Bosmans; Johanna M van Dongen; Hans A M Brölmann; Johannes R Anema; Judith A F Huirne
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-21       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Replacing ambulatory surgical follow-up visits with mobile app home monitoring: modeling cost-effective scenarios.

Authors:  Kathleen A Armstrong; John L Semple; Peter C Coyte
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 5.428

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.