Literature DB >> 17055867

Patient preference and recall of results of EUS-guided FNA.

Dayna S Early1, Eileen Janec, Riad Azar, Stephen Ristvedt, Feng Gao, Steven A Edmundowicz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are no clear guidelines regarding the best way, in terms of timing and setting, to deliver results to patients who undergo EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of suspected pancreatic masses.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study (1) whether patients undergoing EUS-FNA prefer to receive preliminary results immediately after the procedure or at a later date, after final results are known; and (2) to assess the accuracy of patients' recollection of information given to them regarding their FNA diagnosis.
DESIGN: We enrolled patients presenting to our endoscopy center for EUS-FNA of suspected pancreatic masses and obtained data through 4 pilot surveys. SETTINGS: University-based endoscopy center. PATIENTS: Sixty patients who were referred for EUS-FNA of suspected pancreatic masses.
RESULTS: A total of 57 of 59 patients (96.6%) wanted preliminary results the same day as the procedure. Twenty-eight of 60 (42.7%) knew they were having a biopsy, and 42 of 60 (70%) knew cancer was suspected. Of those who received preliminary results, 31 of 41 (75%) remembered the diagnosis correctly the next day, and 32 of 38 (84%) remembered the diagnosis correctly 1 week later. LIMITATIONS: Single-center pilot study.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our patients wished to receive preliminary results the same day as the procedure. Although most patients remembered results correctly, 25% of patients did not remember the correct diagnosis the next day. Further work is needed to improve patient's understanding of the reasons for the EUS-FNA and recall of preliminary EUS-FNA results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17055867      PMCID: PMC3314293          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.06.087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  15 in total

1.  Psychological responses of patients receiving a diagnosis of cancer.

Authors:  P E Schofield; P N Butow; J F Thompson; M H N Tattersall; L J Beeney; S M Dunn
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 2.  Breaking bad news. A review of the literature.

Authors:  J T Ptacek; T L Eberhardt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-08-14       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Delivering bad news.

Authors:  G N Fox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-12-11       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Educating patients after conscious sedation for gastrointestinal procedures.

Authors:  A Hayes; M Buffum
Journal:  Gastroenterol Nurs       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.978

5.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic carcinoma: a 3-year experience and review of the literature.

Authors:  Lourdes R Ylagan; Steven Edmundowicz; Kay Kasal; Douglas Walsh; Danielle W Lu
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-12-25       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  How gastroenterologists inform patients of results after lower endoscopy.

Authors:  J Fazili; M Ilagan; E Phipps; L E Braitman; G M Levine
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Breaking bad news about cancer: patients' preferences for communication.

Authors:  P A Parker; W F Baile; C de Moor; R Lenzi; A P Kudelka; L Cohen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-04-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Darshana Jhala; David C Chhieng; Victor K Chen; Isam Eltoum; Selwyn Vickers; C Mel Wilcox; Nirag Jhala
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in patients with presumed pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Chandrajit P Raut; Ana M Grau; Gregg A Staerkel; Madhukar Kaw; Eric P Tamm; Robert A Wolff; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Douglas B Evans
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.

Authors:  Jason B Klapman; Roberto Logrono; Charles E Dye; Irving Waxman
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  1 in total

1.  Patient perception and preference of EUS-guided drainage over percutaneous drainage when endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage fails: An international multicenter survey.

Authors:  Kwangwoo Nam; Dong Uk Kim; Tae Hoon Lee; Takuji Iwashita; Yousuke Nakai; Ahmed Bolkhir; Lara Aguilera Castro; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Carlos de la Serna; Manuel Perez-Miranda; John G Lee; Sang Soo Lee; Dong-Wan Seo; Sung Koo Lee; Myung-Hwan Kim; Do Hyun Park
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.628

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.