Literature DB >> 28534164

An evaluation of patient experience during percutaneous breast biopsy.

Jean M Seely1,2,3, Fraser Hill4, Susan Peddle5,6, Jackie Lau5,6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous breast biopsy in a tertiary referral high volume breast centre: can we improve the patient experience?
PURPOSE: The study was performed to evaluate patient experience during ultrasound-guided (UGB) and vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB) and determine what factors could improve the patient experience.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent image guided breast biopsy from 01- 05/30, 2015 were approached in a structured telephone interview to evaluate pain and bruising from the procedure. Three hundred and fifty-one patients were interviewed (116 SBB and 235 UGB). Information about the radiologist performing the biopsy, biopsy type, needle gauge, and number of cores was collected from the biopsy reports. Correlation was done using Spearman rank test.
RESULTS: Average patient scores of pain with UGB and SBB were 2.3 and 3.1 (out of 10). There was a significant correlation between pain during SBB and physician experience (p = 0.013), and no correlation with pain during UGB (p > 0.05). No correlation was found between needle gauge and pain experienced during breast biopsy or between numbers of cores and pain (p > 0.05). Body position during SBB was mentioned to cause discomfort and pain in 28% of patients while during UGB was mentioned by 0.4% of patients.
CONCLUSION: SBB was inferior to UGB for patient experience, but years of radiologists' experience correlated with improved patient scores of pain for SBB. KEY POINTS: • To achieve high quality, an institution must emphasise patient-centred care. • Increased radiologist training with stereotactic biopsy may contribute to improved patient experience. • Stereotactic breast biopsy was inferior to ultrasound biopsy for patient experience. • Radiologists' experience correlated with improved patient scores of pain for stereotactic biopsy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast Cancer; Patient-centred care; Stereotactic biopsy; Ultrasound-guided biopsy; Vacuum-assisted biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28534164     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4872-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  18 in total

1.  An Audit of Pain Experienced During Image-Guided Breast Biopsy Procedures at an Academic Center.

Authors:  Emily Pang; Pavel Crystal; Supriya Kulkarni; Kieran Murphy; Ravi J Menezes
Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 2.248

2.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you": breast imagers' perspectives regarding screening mammography for others and for themselves--do they practice what they preach?

Authors:  Jiyon Lee; Paula B Gordon; Gary J Whitman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Preferential use of sonographically guided biopsy to minimize patient discomfort and procedure time in a percutaneous image-guided breast biopsy program.

Authors:  Martha B Mainiero; Ilana F Gareen; Chloe E Bird; Wendy Smith; Cynthia Cobb; Barbara Schepps
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 4.  Radiologic Professionalism in Modern Health Care.

Authors:  Anastasia L Hryhorczuk; Kate Hanneman; Ronald L Eisenberg; Elaine C Meyer; Stephen D Brown
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.333

5.  Prone table stereotactic breast biopsy.

Authors:  J Y H Hui; L K Chan; R L M Chan; A W L Lau; J Lo; J C S Chan; H S Lam
Journal:  Hong Kong Med J       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.227

6.  Diagnosing non-palpable breast disease: short-term impact on quality of life of large-core needle biopsy versus open breast biopsy.

Authors:  H M Verkooijen; E Buskens; P H M Peeters; I H M Borel Rinkes; H J de Koning; Th J M V van Vroonhoven
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.279

7.  Predictors of pain experienced by women during percutaneous imaging-guided breast biopsies.

Authors:  Adrianne E Soo; Rebecca A Shelby; Lauren S Miller; Melissa Hayes Balmadrid; Karen S Johnson; Anava A Wren; Sora C Yoon; Francis J Keefe; Mary Scott Soo
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Large-core breast biopsy: abnormal salivary cortisol profiles associated with uncertainty of diagnosis.

Authors:  Elvira V Lang; Kevin S Berbaum; Susan K Lutgendorf
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Waiting for a breast biopsy. Psychosocial consequences and coping strategies.

Authors:  Sophie Lebel; Gabriela Jakubovits; Zeev Rosberger; Carmen Loiselle; Carole Seguin; Catherine Cornaz; Jan Ingram; Linda August; Andre Lisbona
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.006

10.  Stereotactic large-core needle breast biopsy: analysis of pain and discomfort related to the biopsy procedure.

Authors:  Judith M Hemmer; Johannes C Kelder; Hans P M van Heesewijk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  4 in total

1.  A comparison of diagnostic performance of vacuum-assisted biopsy and core needle biopsy for breast microcalcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xu Chen Huang; Xu Hua Hu; Xiao Ran Wang; Chao Xi Zhou; Fei Fei Wang; Shan Yang; Gui Ying Wang
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of tomosynthesis-guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy of ultrasound occult lesions.

Authors:  Suhaila Bohan; Marlina Tanty Ramli Hamid; Wai Yee Chan; Anushya Vijayananthan; Norlisah Ramli; Shaleen Kaur; Kartini Rahmat
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Physicians' clinical experience and its association with healthcare quality: a systematised review.

Authors:  Soffien Chadli Ajmi; Karina Aase
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2021-11

Review 4.  Optimizing MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Maureen L Groot Koerkamp; Jeanine E Vasmel; Nicola S Russell; Simona F Shaitelman; Carmel N Anandadas; Adam Currey; Danny Vesprini; Brian M Keller; Chiara De-Colle; Kathy Han; Lior Z Braunstein; Faisal Mahmood; Ebbe L Lorenzen; Marielle E P Philippens; Helena M Verkooijen; Jan J W Lagendijk; Antonetta C Houweling; H J G Desiree van den Bongard; Anna M Kirby
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 6.244

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.