Sharon Moses1, Emeka Oloto. 1. Department of Contraception, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, St Peters Health Centre, UK. smoses@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the community-based vasectomy service from the patients' perspective and consider service provision in terms of access, process, quality and outcome. METHOD: A prospective questionnaire was handed to 150 consecutive men attending for vasectomy from February to June 2007, for completion two weeks after surgery. Postal reminders were sent at four and eight weeks. RESULTS: The response rate was 73%, with 93% (n = 102) of the respondents considering the vasectomy unit to be of high quality. The comprehension of written information (93%) and the approachability of staff (83%) were both considered highly satisfactory. Most men were equivocal regarding proposed 'holistic' changes to the service. Men under 40 were more likely to be neutral or agree that vasectomy was embarrassing and preferred a male surgeon. The occurrence of complications did not affect satisfaction but increased the mean number of disturbed nights sleep and days taking analgesia. Suggestions for improvement pertained to the pre-operative information and the use of skin sutures. CONCLUSIONS: The patients' evaluation of our vasectomy unit identified areas for improvement and reinforced good clinical practice. More research is needed to clarify the impact of age, ethnicity and other factors on the accessibility, acceptability and experience of vasectomy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the community-based vasectomy service from the patients' perspective and consider service provision in terms of access, process, quality and outcome. METHOD: A prospective questionnaire was handed to 150 consecutive men attending for vasectomy from February to June 2007, for completion two weeks after surgery. Postal reminders were sent at four and eight weeks. RESULTS: The response rate was 73%, with 93% (n = 102) of the respondents considering the vasectomy unit to be of high quality. The comprehension of written information (93%) and the approachability of staff (83%) were both considered highly satisfactory. Most men were equivocal regarding proposed 'holistic' changes to the service. Men under 40 were more likely to be neutral or agree that vasectomy was embarrassing and preferred a male surgeon. The occurrence of complications did not affect satisfaction but increased the mean number of disturbed nights sleep and days taking analgesia. Suggestions for improvement pertained to the pre-operative information and the use of skin sutures. CONCLUSIONS: The patients' evaluation of our vasectomy unit identified areas for improvement and reinforced good clinical practice. More research is needed to clarify the impact of age, ethnicity and other factors on the accessibility, acceptability and experience of vasectomy.