OBJECTIVE: To find the satisfaction of patients undergoing minor surgery at health centres and describe the processes. DESIGN: Retrospective study of population seeking the service. SETTING: Health district. PATIENTS: 160 people who had minor surgery during a year. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Descriptive variables of everyone who had minor surgery were analysed: age, sex, type of intervention, pre-surgical diagnosis, anatomical-pathological diagnosis and informed consent. Over three weeks the patients were interviewed by phone with use of a satisfaction questionnaire. 160 interventions took place, 80% of which were then studied histologically, with an 83.16% concordance index. 65% of patients were interviewed. 15% had no telephone, 20% were not found, 95.56% considered they were well attended and 3.17% badly attended. 92.06% would choose the health centre again for procedures of a similar nature. 89.9% thought that the explanations they had received were sufficient. 4.4% thought that the room's hygiene was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Minor surgery in primary care was favourably received by users. Activity at our centre had good anatomical-pathological concordance.
OBJECTIVE: To find the satisfaction of patients undergoing minor surgery at health centres and describe the processes. DESIGN: Retrospective study of population seeking the service. SETTING: Health district. PATIENTS: 160 people who had minor surgery during a year. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Descriptive variables of everyone who had minor surgery were analysed: age, sex, type of intervention, pre-surgical diagnosis, anatomical-pathological diagnosis and informed consent. Over three weeks the patients were interviewed by phone with use of a satisfaction questionnaire. 160 interventions took place, 80% of which were then studied histologically, with an 83.16% concordance index. 65% of patients were interviewed. 15% had no telephone, 20% were not found, 95.56% considered they were well attended and 3.17% badly attended. 92.06% would choose the health centre again for procedures of a similar nature. 89.9% thought that the explanations they had received were sufficient. 4.4% thought that the room's hygiene was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Minor surgery in primary care was favourably received by users. Activity at our centre had good anatomical-pathological concordance.
Authors: J F Menárguez Puche; P A Alcántara Muñoz; J D González Caballero; A García Canovas; M López Piñera; J Cruzado Quevedo Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Angel Carlos Matía Cubillo; Francisco Javier de Juana Izquierdo; Olena Zhygálova; Maria Antonia Udaondo Cascante Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: A Arroyo Sebastián; A J Tomás Gómez; J Andreu Gálvez; P García Peche; M A Arroyo Sebastián; D Costa Navarro; J Lacueva Gómez; H Schwartz Chavarri; F Leyn van der Swalm; R Calpena Rico Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: C González Anguren; R Osés Primo; R Molinero Pinilla; A Parra Osés; S de la Red Arroyo Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: E Reyes-Gilabert; L-G Luque-Romero; G Bejarano-Avila; A Garcia-Palma; A Rollon-Mayordomo; P Infante-Cossio Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2017-11-01