Patient information following emergency laparoscopy for right iliac fossa pain

Communication and management of incidental pathology in 1,214 consecutive appendicectomies; a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Important incidental pathology requiring further action is commonly found during appendicectomy, macro- and microscopically. We aimed to determine whether the acute surgical unit (ASU) model improved the management and disclosure of these findings.

METHODS

An ASU model was introduced at our institution on 01/08/2012. In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing appendicectomy 2.5 years before (Traditional group) or after (ASU group) this date were compared. The primary outcomes were rates of appropriate management of the incidental findings, and communication of the findings to the patient and to their general practitioner (GP).

RESULTS

1,214 patients underwent emergency appendicectomy; 465 in the Traditional group and 749 in the ASU group. 80 (6.6%) patients (25 and 55 in each respective period) had important incidental findings. There were 24 patients with benign polyps, 15 with neuro-endocrine tumour, 11 with endometriosis, 8 with pelvic inflammatory disease, 8 Enterobius vermicularis infection, 7 with low grade mucinous cystadenoma, 3 with inflammatory bowel disease, 2 with diverticulitis, 2 with tubo-ovarian mass, 1 with secondary appendiceal malignancy and none with primary appendiceal adenocarcinoma. One patient had dual pathologies. There was no difference between the Traditional and ASU group with regards to communication of the findings to the patient (p = 0.44) and their GP (p = 0.27), and there was no difference in the rates of appropriate management (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of an ASU model did not change rates of surgeon-to-patient and surgeon-to-GP communication nor affect rates of appropriate management of important incidental pathology during appendectomy.

Experiences of counselling in the emergency department during the waiting period: importance of family participation

AIM

To describe patients' experiences of counselling, defined as information giving and advice by nursing staff, in the emergency department. A particular focus was on the waiting period and on the importance of family participation in counselling.

BACKGROUND

Counselling is a widely studied topic in nursing. Too little is known about counselling in emergency departments and especially about participation of family members and suitability of counselling for the patient's life situation.

DESIGN

Descriptive quantitative study.

METHODS

Data were collected by questionnaires from patients (n = 107) visiting a hospital emergency department. The data were subjected to statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-two per cent of patients arrived at the emergency department with a family member: spouse or cohabiting partner, mother, father or daughter. Patients were fairly satisfied with the counselling. The presence of a family member was important to the majority of patients (75%). About half of the patients wanted information concerning their illness, condition and treatment to be given to their family members. Those visiting the department with a family member were more satisfied with counselling and felt that it promoted their participation in care.

CONCLUSION

It is to encourage patients' family members to participate in counselling situations in emergency departments. However, the type of information passed on to family members should be carefully discussed and prepared.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Patients' family members seem to be important partners in counselling situations. The presence of family members supports patients in the emergency department during the waiting period and helps them orientate in their situation. When family members are present, issues which patients wish to discuss should be carefully planned. Family presence should be encouraged in emergency departments.

Patient recall after diagnostic laparoscopy for abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to ascertain how well patients recall their discharge diagnosis and details of their surgical procedure after a diagnostic laparoscopy at our institution.

METHODS

Three hundred and forty-five patients were identified as being eligible in the study. Patient characteristics and treatment details were recorded. They were then contacted by telephone and 258 patients participated (response rate 75%). They were asked the same seven questions by an investigator who was blinded to their treatment details and their responses recorded.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 248 (96%) women and 10 (4%) men. Only seven persons (3%) were incorrect about the state of their appendix. However, 108 persons (42%) were incorrect about their discharge diagnosis. Seventy-one patients (28%) were unhappy with the information they received while in hospital. Age, whether pathology was found, dissatisfaction or type of operation was not found to significantly influence patient recall of diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

We found that patients having a diagnostic laparoscopy at our institution often leave the hospital dissatisfied and with a poor understanding of their discharge diagnosis. This has important implications for future assessments of acute abdominal pain in these patients and can lead to misinformation and unnecessary surgical procedures.