International urogynecology journal · 2022
Home urinary tract infection testing: patient experience and satisfaction with polymerase chain reaction kit.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Melnyk Alexandra I, Toal Coralee, Glass Clark Stephanie, Bradley Megan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with a novel multiplex PCR UTI home collection kit for symptomatic UTI in a urogynecologic population. We secondarily sought to characterize reported uropathogens and resistance profiles of uropathogens in this population. We hypothesized that patients would be satisfied.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of women who were surveyed later about their experience undergoing evaluation for a UTI with a home UTI test at a large tertiary care urogynecology practice in 2020. Symptomatic patients were sent a home UTI kit. We assessed patient satisfaction at a later time with a 5-point Likert scale and collected baseline information. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with this experience. Secondary outcomes included type and number of uropathogens on testing.
RESULTS: A total of 30 patients [73% white race, mean age 71.9 (SD 12.0) years] were surveyed. Patients responded with a mean score of 4.7/5 to all satisfaction questions. Overall, 86% (26/30) of patients would choose this test again. Of those asked if they would choose this test again outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, 86% responded affirmatively. The most common symptoms reported included dysuria (53%), urgency (37%) and frequency (30%). The most common pathogens identified included Escherichia coli (70%), Enterococcus faecalis (60%) and Aerococcus urinae (43%).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients were satisfied with home UTI PCR testing and the majority would choose this option again. Home UTI PCR testing revealed common uropathogens for a population with a high proportion of recurrent UTI, but additional research comparing home versus in-office urine PCR testing is necessary.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of women who were surveyed later about their experience undergoing evaluation for a UTI with a home UTI test at a large tertiary care urogynecology practice in 2020. Symptomatic patients were sent a home UTI kit. We assessed patient satisfaction at a later time with a 5-point Likert scale and collected baseline information. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with this experience. Secondary outcomes included type and number of uropathogens on testing.
RESULTS: A total of 30 patients [73% white race, mean age 71.9 (SD 12.0) years] were surveyed. Patients responded with a mean score of 4.7/5 to all satisfaction questions. Overall, 86% (26/30) of patients would choose this test again. Of those asked if they would choose this test again outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, 86% responded affirmatively. The most common symptoms reported included dysuria (53%), urgency (37%) and frequency (30%). The most common pathogens identified included Escherichia coli (70%), Enterococcus faecalis (60%) and Aerococcus urinae (43%).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients were satisfied with home UTI PCR testing and the majority would choose this option again. Home UTI PCR testing revealed common uropathogens for a population with a high proportion of recurrent UTI, but additional research comparing home versus in-office urine PCR testing is necessary.