The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception · 2010
A community-based vasectomy service in Leicestershire and Rutland - The patients' perspective.
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.
Moses Sharon, Oloto Emeka
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the community-based vasectomy service from the patients' perspective and consider service provision in terms of access, process, quality and outcome.
METHOD: A prospective questionnaire was handed to 150 consecutive men attending for vasectomy from February to June 2007, for completion two weeks after surgery. Postal reminders were sent at four and eight weeks.
RESULTS: The response rate was 73%, with 93% (n = 102) of the respondents considering the vasectomy unit to be of high quality. The comprehension of written information (93%) and the approachability of staff (83%) were both considered highly satisfactory. Most men were equivocal regarding proposed 'holistic' changes to the service. Men under 40 were more likely to be neutral or agree that vasectomy was embarrassing and preferred a male surgeon. The occurrence of complications did not affect satisfaction but increased the mean number of disturbed nights sleep and days taking analgesia. Suggestions for improvement pertained to the pre-operative information and the use of skin sutures.
CONCLUSIONS: The patients' evaluation of our vasectomy unit identified areas for improvement and reinforced good clinical practice. More research is needed to clarify the impact of age, ethnicity and other factors on the accessibility, acceptability and experience of vasectomy.
METHOD: A prospective questionnaire was handed to 150 consecutive men attending for vasectomy from February to June 2007, for completion two weeks after surgery. Postal reminders were sent at four and eight weeks.
RESULTS: The response rate was 73%, with 93% (n = 102) of the respondents considering the vasectomy unit to be of high quality. The comprehension of written information (93%) and the approachability of staff (83%) were both considered highly satisfactory. Most men were equivocal regarding proposed 'holistic' changes to the service. Men under 40 were more likely to be neutral or agree that vasectomy was embarrassing and preferred a male surgeon. The occurrence of complications did not affect satisfaction but increased the mean number of disturbed nights sleep and days taking analgesia. Suggestions for improvement pertained to the pre-operative information and the use of skin sutures.
CONCLUSIONS: The patients' evaluation of our vasectomy unit identified areas for improvement and reinforced good clinical practice. More research is needed to clarify the impact of age, ethnicity and other factors on the accessibility, acceptability and experience of vasectomy.