Carmen S S Latenstein1, Bob J van Wely2, Mieke Klerkx3, Marjan J Meinders4, Bastiaan Thomeer2, Philip R de Reuver5. 1. Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. carmen.latenstein@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Bernhoven, Uden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Strategy and Innovation, Bernhoven, Uden, The Netherlands. 4. Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For both gallbladder removal and inguinal hernia repair, it is important to include patients' perspective in the decision-making process, as watchful waiting is an accepted alternative in selected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate operation rates before and after implementation of decision aids (DAs) and to assess patient compliance with the use of DAs. METHODS: A single-centered retrospective study was performed, including all patients ≥18 years referred to the surgical outpatient clinic with symptomatic gallstones or an inguinal hernia between January 2014 and December 2017. Operation rates before and after implementation of DAs (December 2015) were compared. In addition, patient compliance with the use of DAs and satisfaction with final treatment were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1625 patients with gallstones and 1798 patients with an inguinal hernia were included. After implementation, DAs were provided to 512 patients (63.1%) with gallstones of whom 80.7% (413/512) used the DA and to 528 patients (58.8%) with an inguinal hernia, which was used by 80.7% (426/528). Before implementation, the operation rate in patients with gallstones was 72.0% (586/814) and after implementation 56.7% (460/811) (- 15.3%, p < 0.001). The operation rate in patients with an inguinal hernia decreased from 77.8% (700/900) to 64.6% (580/898) (- 13.2%, p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction with final treatment was high (9/10). CONCLUSION: Implementation of DAs in the surgical outpatient clinic for patients with gallstones or an inguinal hernia is associated with reduced elective operation rates and is associated with high DA compliance.
BACKGROUND: For both gallbladder removal and inguinal hernia repair, it is important to include patients' perspective in the decision-making process, as watchful waiting is an accepted alternative in selected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate operation rates before and after implementation of decision aids (DAs) and to assess patient compliance with the use of DAs. METHODS: A single-centered retrospective study was performed, including all patients ≥18 years referred to the surgical outpatient clinic with symptomatic gallstones or an inguinal hernia between January 2014 and December 2017. Operation rates before and after implementation of DAs (December 2015) were compared. In addition, patient compliance with the use of DAs and satisfaction with final treatment were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1625 patients with gallstones and 1798 patients with an inguinal hernia were included. After implementation, DAs were provided to 512 patients (63.1%) with gallstones of whom 80.7% (413/512) used the DA and to 528 patients (58.8%) with an inguinal hernia, which was used by 80.7% (426/528). Before implementation, the operation rate in patients with gallstones was 72.0% (586/814) and after implementation 56.7% (460/811) (- 15.3%, p < 0.001). The operation rate in patients with an inguinal hernia decreased from 77.8% (700/900) to 64.6% (580/898) (- 13.2%, p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction with final treatment was high (9/10). CONCLUSION: Implementation of DAs in the surgical outpatient clinic for patients with gallstones or an inguinal hernia is associated with reduced elective operation rates and is associated with high DA compliance.
Authors: Mark P Lamberts; Marjolein Lugtenberg; Maroeska M Rovers; Anne J Roukema; Joost P H Drenth; Gert P Westert; Cornelis J H M van Laarhoven Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Emily F Boss; Nishchay Mehta; Neeraja Nagarajan; Anne Links; James R Benke; Zackary Berger; Ali Espinel; Jeremy Meier; Ellen A Lipstein Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: P R de Reuver; A H van Dijk; S Z Wennmacker; M P Lamberts; D Boerma; B L den Oudsten; M G W Dijkgraaf; S C Donkervoort; J A Roukema; G P Westert; J P H Drenth; C J H van Laarhoven; M A Boermeester Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Mary Simons; Frances Rapport; Yvonne Zurynski; Marcus Stoodley; Jeremy Cullis; Andrew S Davidson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Carmen S S Latenstein; Floris M Thunnissen; Bastiaan J M Thomeer; Bob J van Wely; Marjan J Meinders; Glyn Elwyn; Philip R de Reuver Journal: Health Expect Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Floris M Thunnissen; Bernhard W Schreurs; Carmen S S Latenstein; Marjan J Meinders; Eddy M Adang; Glyn Elwyn; Doeke Boersma; Bas Bosmans; Koop Bosscha; Bastiaan L Ginsel; Eric J Hazebroek; Jeroen J Nieuwenhuis; Maarten Staarink; Dries Verhallen; Marc L Wagener; Femke Atsma; Philip R de Reuver Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Carmen S S Latenstein; Floris M Thunnissen; Mitchell Harker; Stef Groenewoud; Mark W Noordenbos; Femke Atsma; Philip R de Reuver Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 2.102