Jennifer C Thompson1, Sara B Cichowski2, Rebecca G Rogers3, Fares Qeadan4, Julissa Zambrano1, Cynthia Wenzl1, Peter C Jeppson1, Gena C Dunivan1, Yuko M Komesu1. 1. University of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA. 2. University of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA. scichowski@salud.unm.edu. 3. Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 4. University of New Mexico Clinical and Translational Science Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to determine whether postoperative telephone follow-up was noninferior to in-person clinic visits based on patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were safety and clinical outcomes. METHODS:Women scheduled for pelvic surgery were recruited from a single academic institution and randomized to clinic or telephone follow-up. The clinic group returned for visits 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively and the telephone group received a call from a nurse at the same time intervals. Women completed the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care Survey (S-CAHPS) questionnaire, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI)-20, and pain scales prior to and 3 months postoperatively. Randomized patients who completed the S-CAHPS at 3 months were included for analysis. Sample size calculations, based on a 15% noninferiority limit in the S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating, required 100 participants, with power = 80% and alpha = 0.025. RESULTS:From October 2016 to November 2017, 100 participants were consented, underwent surgery, were randomized, and included in the final analysis (clinic group n = 50, telephone group n = 50). Mean age was 58.5 ± 12.2 years. Demographic data and surgery type, dichotomized into outpatient and inpatient, did not differ between groups. The S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating from patients in the telephone group was noninferior to the clinic group (92 vs 88%, respectively, rated their surgeons 9 and10, with a noninferiority limit of 36.1; p = 0.006). Adverse events did not differ between groups (n = 26; 57% fclinic vs 43% telephone; p = 0.36). Patients in the telephone group did not require additional emergency room or primary care visits. Clinical outcome measures improved in both groups, with no differences (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone follow-up after pelvic floor surgery results in noninferior patient satisfaction, without differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events. Telephone follow-up may improve healthcare quality and decrease patient and provider burden for postoperative care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02891187.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to determine whether postoperative telephone follow-up was noninferior to in-person clinic visits based on patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were safety and clinical outcomes. METHODS:Women scheduled for pelvic surgery were recruited from a single academic institution and randomized to clinic or telephone follow-up. The clinic group returned for visits 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively and the telephone group received a call from a nurse at the same time intervals. Women completed the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care Survey (S-CAHPS) questionnaire, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI)-20, and pain scales prior to and 3 months postoperatively. Randomized patients who completed the S-CAHPS at 3 months were included for analysis. Sample size calculations, based on a 15% noninferiority limit in the S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating, required 100 participants, with power = 80% and alpha = 0.025. RESULTS: From October 2016 to November 2017, 100 participants were consented, underwent surgery, were randomized, and included in the final analysis (clinic group n = 50, telephone group n = 50). Mean age was 58.5 ± 12.2 years. Demographic data and surgery type, dichotomized into outpatient and inpatient, did not differ between groups. The S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating from patients in the telephone group was noninferior to the clinic group (92 vs 88%, respectively, rated their surgeons 9 and10, with a noninferiority limit of 36.1; p = 0.006). Adverse events did not differ between groups (n = 26; 57% fclinic vs 43% telephone; p = 0.36). Patients in the telephone group did not require additional emergency room or primary care visits. Clinical outcome measures improved in both groups, with no differences (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone follow-up after pelvic floor surgery results in noninferior patient satisfaction, without differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events. Telephone follow-up may improve healthcare quality and decrease patient and provider burden for postoperative care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02891187.
Authors: M L Kimman; C D Dirksen; A C Voogd; P Falger; B C M Gijsen; M Thuring; A Lenssen; F van der Ent; J Verkeyn; C Haekens; P Hupperets; J K S Nuytinck; Y van Riet; S J Brenninkmeijer; L J E E Scheijmans; A Kessels; Ph Lambin; L J Boersma Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Alison C Weidner; Shawn A Menefee; Emily S Lukacz; Peggy Norton; Joseph Schaffer; John N Nguyen; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cathie Spino; Lauren Klein Warren; Marie G Gantz; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rebecca C Fallaize; Christine Tinline-Purvis; Anthony R Dixon; Anne-Marie Pullyblank Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Jessica C Sassani; Philip J Grosse; Lauren Kunkle; Lindsey Baranski; Mary F Ackenbom Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Cara L Grimes; Ethan M Balk; Catrina C Crisp; Danielle D Antosh; Miles Murphy; Gabriela E Halder; Peter C Jeppson; Emily E Weber LeBrun; Sonali Raman; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Cheryl Iglesia; Alexis A Dieter; Ladin Yurteri-Kaplan; Gaelen Adam; Kate V Meriwether Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Tom Jansen; Martin Gathen; Amadeo Touet; Hans Goost; Dieter Christian Wirtz; Christof Burger; Robert Pflugmacher; Kristian Welle; Koroush Kabir Journal: Z Orthop Unfall Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 0.923
Authors: Laura L Giusto; Samir Derisavifard; Patricia M Zahner; Jessica J Rueb; Luo Deyi; Li Jiayi; Fang Weilin; Raphael de Jesus Moreira; Alexander Gomelsky; Matteo Balzarro; Howard B Goldman Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Jinying Chen; Jessica G Wijesundara; Angela Patterson; Sarah L Cutrona; Sandra Aiello; David D McManus; M Diane McKee; Bo Wang; Thomas K Houston Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 2.908