Direct to cystoscopy: A prospective quality assessment of patient preferences.


Journal

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
ISSN: 1911-6470
Titre abrégé: Can Urol Assoc J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101312644

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 9 11 2019
medline: 9 11 2019
entrez: 9 11 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Cystourethroscopy is one of the most common procedures performed by urologists in both office and operative settings. With the recent centralization of cystoscopy at our center, we looked to assess our current delivery model, to determine whether patients prefer their initial visit to be in cystoscopy or in the clinic, followed by a cystoscopy appointment later. We administered 500 prospective questionnaires to adults undergoing cystoscopy by 14 urologists at our center in 2017. Patient demographics were collected, along with their questionnaire results that we compared to their urologist-reported indication, results, and plan. Our primary objective was to assess whether patients prefer to be seen direct to cystoscopy (DTC) vs. a clinic appointment (CA) before cystoscopy. A total of 500 questionnaires were analyzed, with 336/500 (67%) patients being male. Mean age was 66 years (21-93), with 30% under 60 years. Thirty-nine percent (n=193) were undergoing their first cystoscopy, with 85% preferring DTC. There was no difference in age, gender, first-time cystoscopy, or indication for cystoscopy when comparing those who preferred DTC vs. CA. Patients who had an accurate understanding of the indication for their cystoscopy had 6.23 times higher odds of preferring DTC (p<0.05). We also identified a deficiency in patient comprehension of cystoscopy results and followup plans. With limited health resources, a large patient catchment area, and the majority of patients preferring to be seen DTC, there is evidence to implement a default DTC approach to booking cystoscopy clinics.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31702547
pii: cuaj.6013
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6013
pmc: PMC7124180
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

118-121

Références

Can Urol Assoc J. 2012 Jun;6(3):E111-4
pubmed: 22709880
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Oct;41(10):474-9
pubmed: 26404077
Isr Med Assoc J. 2004 Aug;6(8):474-8
pubmed: 15326827
Can Urol Assoc J. 2017 Mar-Apr;11(3-4):104-110
pubmed: 28515809
J Endourol. 2015 Jul;29(7):791-6
pubmed: 25630866
Urol Oncol. 2017 Dec;35(12):673.e1-673.e7
pubmed: 28887095
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Feb;173:101-5
pubmed: 24300559
Int Braz J Urol. 2014 Jul-Aug;40(4):533-8
pubmed: 25251958

Auteurs

Mark A Assmus (MA)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Ryan McLarty (R)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan (A)

School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Shubha K De (SK)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Classifications MeSH