Caroline Sollberger Juhl1, Jonna Bjørk2, Karin Glavind2. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Aalborg University Hospital, Reberbansgade 15, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark. c.juhl@rn.dk. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Aalborg University Hospital, Reberbansgade 15, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The office setting provides the opportunity for surgeons to perform specific procedures more efficiently than in a day case operating theater. Consequently, health care systems are interested in altering surgical services from a day case operating theater to an office setting. The impact on patient's satisfaction is more challenging to estimate. The bulking procedure is an intervention for urinary stress incontinence. It was originally performed in the day case operating theater under general anesthesia or sedation. Today, the procedure is mostly done under local anesthesia. The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction changing from day case operating theater to office setting. Our hypothesis was that patients preferred the office setting. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was executed from 15 September 2020 to 1 June 2021. A total of 115 women underwent a bulking procedure in the office setting. A follow-up (phone questionnaire) 3 months post-operatively for quality assurance is mandatory. The office setting experience was assessed concurrently. RESULTS: A total of 95.6% (110 out of 115) preferred the bulking procedure performed in the office setting. The reasons were: a short waiting time (71 out of 110; 64.5%), less nervousness (47 out of 110; 42.7%), and they felt more secure (49 out of 110; 44.5%). On a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10, 37.4% (43 out of 115) considered a short waiting time important (VAS 10) and 81.7% (94 out of 115) rated a short waiting time ≥ VAS 5. CONCLUSIONS: The office setting provides a patient-friendly and comfortable place for the bulking procedure and is generally preferred by the patient over the day case operating theater. Important for the preference is the accessibility and minimal waiting time. The office setting is therefore both convenient and efficient for surgeon and patient.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The office setting provides the opportunity for surgeons to perform specific procedures more efficiently than in a day case operating theater. Consequently, health care systems are interested in altering surgical services from a day case operating theater to an office setting. The impact on patient's satisfaction is more challenging to estimate. The bulking procedure is an intervention for urinary stress incontinence. It was originally performed in the day case operating theater under general anesthesia or sedation. Today, the procedure is mostly done under local anesthesia. The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction changing from day case operating theater to office setting. Our hypothesis was that patients preferred the office setting. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was executed from 15 September 2020 to 1 June 2021. A total of 115 women underwent a bulking procedure in the office setting. A follow-up (phone questionnaire) 3 months post-operatively for quality assurance is mandatory. The office setting experience was assessed concurrently. RESULTS: A total of 95.6% (110 out of 115) preferred the bulking procedure performed in the office setting. The reasons were: a short waiting time (71 out of 110; 64.5%), less nervousness (47 out of 110; 42.7%), and they felt more secure (49 out of 110; 44.5%). On a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10, 37.4% (43 out of 115) considered a short waiting time important (VAS 10) and 81.7% (94 out of 115) rated a short waiting time ≥ VAS 5. CONCLUSIONS: The office setting provides a patient-friendly and comfortable place for the bulking procedure and is generally preferred by the patient over the day case operating theater. Important for the preference is the accessibility and minimal waiting time. The office setting is therefore both convenient and efficient for surgeon and patient.
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.696