4.5 Article

Nurse-led clinics can manage faecal incontinence effectively: results from a tertiary referral centre

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 710-715

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/codi.12983

关键词

Faecal incontinence; conservative therapy; treatment; patient satisfaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimIn May 2010, a specialist nurse-initiated assessment and treatment algorithm for faecal incontinence (FI) was introduced at the department of Anal Physiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of and patient satisfaction with the program. MethodA medical file audit was preformed on patients evaluated and treated for FI and discharged after September 2010. Patients were invited to participate in a structured telephone interview. This study aimed to enrol 100 patients. Patients were asked if they were satisfied with their current level of continence status (yes/no), and a numerical satisfaction score and Wexner score were recorded. These results were compared to baseline and at time of discharge. ResultsOne-hundred patients completed the telephone interview; 73 of these patients were satisfied after a median of 420 (range: 114-586) days following discharge from the program. A median of one outpatient consultation followed by one telephone follow-up was required before the patients were discharged. The Wexner score was significantly reduced by 3.9 (4.4) (P<0.001) points among the satisfied and non-significantly reduced by 0.52 (+/- 3.3) (P=0.42) points among the dissatisfied patients at follow-up compared to baseline. The satisfied and dissatisfied patients at follow-up did not differ in baseline characteristics including Wexner score. ConclusionsFI can successively be evaluated and conservatively managed by specialist nurses, and these nurses achived high satisfaction rates among their patients. The concept of specialist nurse-led clinics will reduce waiting lists, and descrease the number of patients needing to be evaluated by a surgeon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据