Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2010
Acoustic tumor observation and failure to follow-up.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hillman Todd A, Chen Douglas A, Quigley Matthew, Arriaga Moises A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical course of patients undergoing observation for their acoustic tumor with evaluation of the incidence and contributing variables to failure to follow-up.
STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review and telephone interview.
SETTING: Single subspecialty practice.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-two patients underwent an observation period after their unilateral acoustic tumor was diagnosed. Follow-up patterns were noted and multiple patient variables were analyzed to determine risk factors that contributed to risk of failing to keep prescribed follow-up. Telephone interviews and/or public record reviews were conducted to determine the reasons for failing to follow-up.
RESULTS: Fifty-two (42.6%) patients failed to keep prescribed follow-up. No preoperative patient or tumor variables were correlated with the risk of failure to follow-up. The investigators were able to contact and interview 20 patients to determine reasons for not keeping follow-up. Of these patients, nine (45%) electively chose not to follow-up, six (30%) did not appear to have a clear understanding of their diagnosis or treatment options despite adequate counseling, and five (25%) had medical problems that took precedence over the acoustic tumor. Very few patients elected to reschedule follow-up even after contact was made.
CONCLUSION: Failure to follow-up is a serious problem with acoustic tumor observation protocols. It is difficult to detect which patients are at risk for noncompliance. Patient noncompliance with observation protocols should be considered when determining the most appropriate treatment for each acoustic tumor patient.
STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review and telephone interview.
SETTING: Single subspecialty practice.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-two patients underwent an observation period after their unilateral acoustic tumor was diagnosed. Follow-up patterns were noted and multiple patient variables were analyzed to determine risk factors that contributed to risk of failing to keep prescribed follow-up. Telephone interviews and/or public record reviews were conducted to determine the reasons for failing to follow-up.
RESULTS: Fifty-two (42.6%) patients failed to keep prescribed follow-up. No preoperative patient or tumor variables were correlated with the risk of failure to follow-up. The investigators were able to contact and interview 20 patients to determine reasons for not keeping follow-up. Of these patients, nine (45%) electively chose not to follow-up, six (30%) did not appear to have a clear understanding of their diagnosis or treatment options despite adequate counseling, and five (25%) had medical problems that took precedence over the acoustic tumor. Very few patients elected to reschedule follow-up even after contact was made.
CONCLUSION: Failure to follow-up is a serious problem with acoustic tumor observation protocols. It is difficult to detect which patients are at risk for noncompliance. Patient noncompliance with observation protocols should be considered when determining the most appropriate treatment for each acoustic tumor patient.