PubMed · 10123543
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1993. HotList: scheduling systems.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10123543/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Standards for good practice in clinical risk management issued by the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts indicate that "appropriate information is provided to patients on the risks and benefits of proposed treatment, and of the alternatives available before a signature on a consent form is sought". AIMS: To investigate the practicability and patient acceptability of a postal information and consent booklet for patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopy. METHODS: Information about gastroscopy procedure, personalised appointment details, and a carbonised consent form were compiled into a single booklet. This was mailed to patients well in advance of their endoscopic procedure. Patient satisfaction for this new process was assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS: 275 patients received a patient information booklet. Of these, 150 (54.5%) returned the consent form by post when they confirmed their attendance; 141 (94%) had signed the form, and the other nine requested further information. Of the remaining 125 booklets sent out, 115 (92%) forms were brought back on the day of the investigation having been previously signed. The remaining 10 (8%) required further information before signing the form. An audit of 168 patients was used to test reaction to the booklet and the idea of filling in the form before coming to hospital; 155 patients (92. 2%) reported the information given in the booklet to be "very useful", and all reported it to be "clear and understandable". CONCLUSION: A specifically designed patient information booklet with integral consent form is accepted by patients, and improves the level of understanding prior to the investigation being carried out.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: To known the revisit rate in an emergency department (ED), to define the clinical and epidemiological profile of revisited patients, and to identify influencing factors for revisits. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During one year period, we included all revisited patients returning to ED before 72 h of a previous discharge from medical unit of ED. As controls we included the next patient seen after every case being discharged. We compiled clinical and epidemiological data from both groups. For revisited patients, we identify the cause of the revisit, changes in diagnosis and/or treatment, diagnosis mistakes and final destination of the patient. RESULTS: We identified 406 revisits (revisit rate: 1.42%). Multivariate analysis disclosed, as positive predictive factors for revisit, and age over 60 years (p = 0.006), male sex (p = 0.02), visit performed at level 2 (severe diseases) (p = 0.02), initial assessment by junior resident (p = 0.01), number of complementary procedures higher than 2 (p = 0.01) and gastrointestinal disease as diagnosis after the first visit (p = 0.03). On the other hand, dermatologic symptoms as initial complaint and unspecific symptoms (p = 0.01) were negative predictors for revisit. In only 16% of cases, the revisit did not imply changes in the diagnosis or treatment. Revisits were due to disease-related factors in 34% of cases, physician-related factors in 33%, patients-related factors in 10%, system-related factors in 3% and there were no relationship with the previous visit in 15% (in 5% of cases the cause was unassessable). The diagnosis error most frequently seen was "nonspecific abdominal syndrome". Seventy six percent of revisited patients were admitted. CONCLUSIONS: The revisit rate in our ED is relatively low. Patients being revisited have well-defined clinical and epidemiological profile. The majority of revisited patients require to be admitted.