Literature DB >> 24309978

A virtual outpatient department provides a satisfactory patient experience following endoscopy.

Elizabeth M Ryan1, Ailín C Rogers, Ann M Hanly, Niamh McCawley, Joseph Deasy, Deborah A McNamara.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate telephone follow-up of post-endoscopy patients as an alternative to attendance at the outpatient department.
METHODS: Access to outpatient appointments is often a target for improvement in healthcare systems. Increased outpatient clinic capacity is not feasible without investment and extra manpower in an already constrained service. Outpatient attendance was audited at a busy colorectal surgical service. A subset of patients appropriate for follow-up in a "virtual outpatient department" (VOPD) were identified. A pilot study was designed and involved telephone follow-up of low-risk endoscopic procedures. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS), which is a standardised survey of patient satisfaction with healthcare experiences. This was conducted via anonymous questionnaire at the end of the study.
RESULTS: Of a total of 166 patients undergoing endoscopy in the time period, 79 were prospectively recruited to VOPD follow-up based on eligibility criteria. Overall, 67 (84.8 %) were successfully followed up by telephone consultation; nine patients (11.4 %) were contacted by mail. The remaining three patients (3.8 %) were brought back to the OPD. Patients recruited were more likely to be younger (55.82 ± 14.96 versus 60.78 ± 13.97 years, P = 0.029) and to have had normal examinations (49.4 versus 31.0 %, χ (2) = 5.070, P = 0.025). Nearly three quarters of patients responded to the questionnaire. The mean scores for all four aspects of the MISS were satisfactory, and overall patients were satisfied with the VOPD experience.
CONCLUSION: VOPD is a target for improved healthcare provision, with improved efficiency and a high patient satisfaction rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24309978     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-013-1801-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  26 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002).

Authors:  Stuart R Cairns; John H Scholefield; Robert J Steele; Malcolm G Dunlop; Huw J W Thomas; Gareth D Evans; Jayne A Eaden; Matthew D Rutter; Wendy P Atkin; Brian P Saunders; Anneke Lucassen; Paul Jenkins; Peter D Fairclough; Christopher R J Woodhouse
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  The global financial crisis: an acute threat to health.

Authors:  Richard Horton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Timeliness of care in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  J K Olsson; E M Schultz; M K Gould
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 4.  Telephone follow-up as a primary care intervention for postdischarge outcomes improvement: a systematic review.

Authors:  J Benjamin Crocker; Jonathan T Crocker; Jeffrey L Greenwald
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: home visit versus telephone follow-up.

Authors:  W M Fallis; D Scurrah
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  The 'Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale' (MISS-21) adapted for British general practice.

Authors:  Richard Meakin; John Weinman
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.267

7.  Telephone clinic follow-up following carpal tunnel decompression.

Authors:  M Williams; A Amin; A Getgood; P Hallam; A J Chojnowski; P G Chapman
Journal:  J Hand Surg Eur Vol       Date:  2008-06-25

8.  Telephone follow-up improves patients satisfaction following hospital discharge.

Authors:  Eyal Braun; Amjad Baidusi; Gideon Alroy; Zaher S Azzam
Journal:  Eur J Intern Med       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 4.487

9.  Understanding waiting lists as the matching of surgical capacity to demand: are we wasting enough surgical time?

Authors:  J J Pandit; M Pandit; J M Reynard
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 6.955

10.  Delays in the diagnosis of six cancers: analysis of data from the National Survey of NHS Patients: Cancer.

Authors:  V L Allgar; R D Neal
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  1 in total

1.  Virtual voice clinics in the COVID-19 era: have they been helpful?

Authors:  Carolina Watters; Benjamin Miller; Mairead Kelly; Victoria Burnay; Yakubu Karagama; Elfy Chevretton
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 2.503

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.