Patient Satisfaction With Postoperative Follow up After Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy
Patient Satisfaction With Two and Six Week Postoperative Follow up Appointments After Benign Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy Versus Two Week Postoperative Visit Alone: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
The objective of follow up appointments following benign gynecologic surgery is to ensure adequate postoperative recovery, assess additional patient concerns, and to identify and manage any delayed postoperative complications. There is limited literature addressing short-term postoperative follow up for benign gynecologic surgery, particularly those performed through a minimally invasive approach.
The benefits of minimally invasive surgery includes shorter operative time, reduced hospital stay, improved cosmesis, and faster recovery especially when combined with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. However, this does not negate the need for follow up. Although no consensus exists on the appropriate frequency and number of postoperative appointments, there is no debate on its value.
Due to lack of evidence on this issue, the number and frequency of postoperative appointments is currently dependent on surgeon preference, type of procedure performed and complications encountered intraoperatively and postoperatively, which could lead to patient confusion and unnecessary cost and hassle.
For this reason, investigation of outcomes based on the number and frequency of postoperative follow up visits may improve optimal patient satisfaction, improve compliance and provide early detection of postoperative complications. Such knowledge could serve to mitigate efforts to develop and implement protocols to improve compliance with postoperative follow-up care, potentially reduce emergency room visits, readmissions, empower patients and reduce cost.
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Kentucky
-
Louisville, Kentucky, United States, 40202
- Health Care Outpatient Center and University of Louisville
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients of University of Louisville gynecology providers age 18-70 who are planning to undergo a minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications.
- Incident surgery must be performed at the University of Louisville Hospital (or affiliated hospital attended by a provider affiliated with the academic department).
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients with decreased mental capacity who are unable to consent.
- Patients who do not have sufficient English proficiency to complete or understand informed consent for the surgery or study questionnaires.
- Patients with unreliable access to a telephone.
- Patients with significant medical comorbidities that would necessitate more frequent follow up.
- Patients for whom the planned number of follow ups have been pre-determined at the pre-operative visit due to a certain medical need or condition.
- Patients who report an inability to comply with postoperative follow up in either group to which they could be randomized.
- Women who decide at their preoperative visit they do not desire or cannot undergo benign gynecologic surgery as scheduled.
- Women who have medical contraindication to undergoing the benign gynecologic surgery that was planned prior, as determined in their best interest by their provider
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Two and six week follow up
Patients will be assigned to routine two and six week postoperative follow up appointments
|
Comparison of two and six week postoperative follow up versus a six week postoperative follow up alone
|
|
Experimental: Six week follow up only
Patients will be assigned to a single six week postoperative follow up appointment
|
Comparison of two and six week postoperative follow up versus a six week postoperative follow up alone
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient satisfaction
Time Frame: 6 weeks
|
To assess patient satisfaction with the number of postoperative follow up office visits after minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications utilizing the Surgical Care - Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician & Group Survey.
|
6 weeks
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Postoperative complication rate
Time Frame: 6 weeks
|
Determine the type and number of postoperative complications as assessed using the Clavien-Dindo Classification system has been selected as a validated and objective measure to collect data pertaining to postoperative complications
|
6 weeks
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Shan Biscette, MD, University of Louisville School of Medicine
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
- Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.
- Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW, Kluivers KB. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;2015(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
- EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
- Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.
- Cohen SL, Ajao MO, Clark NV, Vitonis AF, Einarsson JI. Outpatient Hysterectomy Volume in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;130(1):130-137. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002103.
- Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Nov;110(5):1091-5. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000285997.38553.4b.
- Slankamenac K, Graf R, Puhan MA, Clavien PA. Perception of surgical complications among patients, nurses and physicians: a prospective cross-sectional survey. Patient Saf Surg. 2011 Nov 22;5(1):30. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-5-30.
- Bateman AG, Neilens H, Gericke CA, George J, Freeman RM. Is there a need for postoperative follow-up after routine urogynaecological procedures? Patients will self-present if they have problems. Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Mar;25(3):381-6. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2229-1. Epub 2013 Oct 9.
- Bromage SJ, Napier-Hemy RD, Payne SR, Pearce I. Outpatient follow up appointments; are we using the resources effectively? Postgrad Med J. 2006 Jul;82(969):465-7. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2005.043547.
- McVay MR, Kelley KR, Mathews DL, Jackson RJ, Kokoska ER, Smith SD. Postoperative follow-up: is a phone call enough? J Pediatr Surg. 2008 Jan;43(1):83-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.09.025.
- Scott AR, Rush AJ 3rd, Naik AD, Berger DH, Suliburk JW. Surgical follow-up costs disproportionately impact low-income patients. J Surg Res. 2015 Nov;199(1):32-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.013. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
- Tevis SE, Kennedy GD, Kent KC. Is There a Relationship Between Patient Satisfaction and Favorable Surgical Outcomes? Adv Surg. 2015;49(1):221-33. doi: 10.1016/j.yasu.2015.03.006.
- Shirley ED, Sanders JO. Patient satisfaction: Implications and predictors of success. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 May 15;95(10):e69. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01048.
- Barrie A, Freeman AH, Lyon L, Garcia C, Conell C, Abbott LH, Littell RD, Powell CB. Classification of Postoperative Complications in Robotic-assisted Compared With Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Nov-Dec;23(7):1181-1188. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.832. Epub 2016 Sep 9.
- Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, Sadique Z, Meads D, O'Dwyer J, Barton G, Irvine L. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: The Impact on Cost Effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018 Jan;21(1):49-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004. Epub 2017 Oct 18.
- Jiang N, Malkin BD. Use of Lean and CAHPS Surgical Care Survey to Improve Patients' Experiences with Surgical Care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Nov;155(5):743-747. doi: 10.1177/0194599816657051. Epub 2016 Jun 21.
- McCaughey D, Stalley S, Williams E. Examining the effect of EVS spending on HCAHPS scores: a value optimization matrix for expense management. J Healthc Manag. 2013 Sep-Oct;58(5):320-34; discussion 334-5.
- Schmocker RK, Cherney Stafford LM, Siy AB, Leverson GE, Winslow ER. Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS). Surgery. 2015 Dec;158(6):1724-33. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.06.018. Epub 2015 Jul 17.
- Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, Ghali WA. New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;57(12):1288-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012.
- Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):281-92. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256005.
- Becerra Perez MM, Menear M, Brehaut JC, Legare F. Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret about Health Care Decisions: A Systematic Review. Med Decis Making. 2016 Aug;36(6):777-90. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16636113. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
- Agdi M, Al-Ghafri W, Antolin R, Arrington J, O'Kelley K, Thomson AJ, Tulandi T. Vaginal vault dehiscence after hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 May-Jun;16(3):313-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.01.006. Epub 2009 Mar 14.
- AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jan-Feb;18(1):1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.001. Epub 2010 Nov 6. No abstract available.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 18.0481
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Satisfaction
-
NCT05627193Completed
-
NCT06519123CompletedPatient Satisfaction | Clinician Satisfaction
-
NCT06171035Recruiting
-
NCT07237646CompletedSatisfaction, Personal | Knowledge
-
NCT07542197Not yet recruitingPregnancy | Telemedicine | Anesthesia | Satisfaction
-
NCT07242794CompletedSatisfaction | Waste Management
-
NCT07496346Not yet recruitingSatisfaction | Usability | Acceptability | User Experience
-
NCT07429604CompletedFlexibility | Life Satisfaction | Body Awareness
-
NCT01466140CompletedPatient Satisfaction | Doctor Satisfaction | Duration of Consultation
-
NCT06992544Active, not recruitingCognition | Life Satisfaction | Cardiometabolic Risk Factors
Clinical Trials on postoperative follow up appointment
-
NCT02276456TerminatedMyocardial Infarction
-
NCT02221895CompletedCervical Cancer | Postpartum Depression | Pregnancy | Contraception | Breastfeeding
-
NCT07623213Not yet recruitingStanford Type A Aortic Dissection | Acute Type A Aortic Dissection | Postoperative Aortic Dissection Follow-up
-
NCT06535347CompletedEmergency Service, Hospital
-
NCT02293213CompletedContraception | Contraception Behavior | Chemical Teratogen Exposure
-
NCT03461341CompletedEsophageal Cancer | Chemoradiation | Chemotherapy | Surgery | Metastatic Cancer | Radiation | Recurrent Esophageal Cancer
-
NCT04703725CompletedInfertility | Psychological Distress | Infertility, Female | Depression, Anxiety | Nurse's Role
-
NCT04093245UnknownEmergencies | Frailty | Health Care Utilization | Transition
-
NCT04872413CompletedRecurrent Mantle Cell Lymphoma | Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma
-
NCT06483295Recruiting