Advertisement

Assessment of Patient Understanding Prior to Urological Procedures

Published:September 30, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.010

      Abstract

      Objective

      To evaluate patient understanding of risks, benefits, and alternatives (R/B/A) prior to urological procedures using the teachback method.

      Methods

      Using a preprocedural phone interview, patients recalled general knowledge and R/B/A of a scheduled procedure. A scoring system compared patient responses to a standardized R/B/A list to analyze the level of understanding, graded as incomplete (<25%), partial (25-75%), or complete (>75%). Following the interview, additional education was provided if understanding was inadequate, and patients were queried regarding their satisfaction.

      Results

      Patients (n = 99) comprised 46% women; 32% Spanish speaking; Mean age was 64 ± 10.9 years. Procedures included were: intravesical botulinum toxin injection (24), mid-urethral sling (9), colpocleisis (4), prostate biopsy (24), ureteroscopy (16), transurethral resection prostate (11), transurethral resection bladder tumor (11). Across all procedures, the average percent of risks identified was 12%, benefits 63%, and alternatives 35%. No patients had complete understanding, but most had partial (73.7%). Patients had significantly higher level of understanding if they were female (P = 0.02), underwent the same procedure previously (P < 0.01) or any surgery within a year (P = 0.02), and were undergoing an in-office procedures (P = 0.03). After the teachback interview, most patients (90%) were satisfied with their understanding.

      Conclusion

      In our cohort, patient understanding was alarmingly incomplete and there was substantial benefit in pre-procedural interviews. Our findings highlight the need for improvement in patient education prior to surgery and offers a potential solution using a teachback-based telephone interview.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Spatz ES
        • Krumholz HM
        • Moulton BW.
        The new era of informed consent: getting to a reasonable-patient standard through shared decision making.
        JAMA. 2016; 315: 2063-2064https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.3070
        • Glaser J
        • Nouri S
        • Fernandez A
        • et al.
        Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: an updated systematic review.
        Med Decis Making. 2020; 40: 119-143https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19896348
        • Kriwanek S
        • Armbruster C
        • Beckerhinn P
        • Blauensteier W
        • Gschwantler M
        Patients’ assessment and recall of surgical information after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
        Dig Surg. 1998; 15: 669-673https://doi.org/10.1159/000018675
        • Berman L
        • Curry L
        • Gusberg R
        • Dardik A
        • Fraenkel L
        Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: The patient's perspective.
        J Vasc Surg. 2008; 48: 296-302https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.03.037
        • Brezis M
        • Israel S
        • Weinstein-Birenshtock A
        • Pogoda P
        • Sharon A
        • Tauber R.
        Quality of informed consent for invasive procedures.
        Int J Qual Health Care. 2008; 20: 352-357https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzn025
        • Kinnersley P
        • Phillips K
        • Savage K
        • et al.
        Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive health care procedures.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009445.pub2
        • Weckbach S
        • Kocak T
        • Reichel H
        • Lattig F
        A survey on patients’ knowledge and expectations during informed consent for spinal surgery: can we improve the shared decision-making process?.
        Patient Saf Surg. 2016; 10: 15https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-016-0103-z
        • Yen PH
        • Leasure AR.
        Use and effectiveness of the teachback method in patient education and health outcomes.
        Fed Pract Health Care Prof VA DoD PHS. 2019; 36: 284-289
        • Fink AS
        • Prochazka AV
        • Henderson WG
        • et al.
        Enhancement of surgical informed consent by addition of repeat back: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.
        Ann Surg. 2010; 252 (Accessed January 7, 2022)
        • Schwartz P
        • Edenberg E
        • Barrett P
        • Perkins S
        • Meslin E
        • Imperiale T
        Patient understanding of benefits, risks, and alternatives to screening colonoscopy.
        Am Med. 2013; 45: 83-89
        • Uzzaman MM
        • Sinha S
        • Shaygi B
        • Vitish-Sharma P
        • Loizides S
        • Myint F
        Evaluation of patient's understanding and recall of the consent process after open inguinal hernia repairs.
        Int J Surg. 2012; 10: 5-10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.003
        • Chia CLK
        • Chan KS
        • Ng MJM
        • Rao AD
        • Singaporewalla R.
        Assessing adequacy of informed consent for elective surgery by student-administered interview.
        ANZ J Surg. 2019; 89: 677-682https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.15214
        • Bertakis K
        • Azari R
        • Helms L
        • Callahan E
        • Robbins J.
        Gender differences in the utilization of health care services.
        J Fam Pr. 2000; 49: 147-152
        • Chan Y
        • Irish JC
        • Wood SJ
        • et al.
        Patient education and informed consent in head and neck surgery.
        Arch Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2002; 128: 1269-1274https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.128.11.1269
        • Dominique I
        • Ecochard R
        • Morel-Journel N
        • et al.
        Chirurgie de l’hypertrophie bénigne de prostate et information des patients : qu’est ce que les patients comprennent et retiennent ? [Benign prostate hypertrophy surgery and patient information: what is it that patients understand and retain?].
        Prog En Urol [Prog Urol]. 2020; 30: 97-104https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2019.11.008
        • Dunivan GC
        • Sussman AL
        • Jelovsek JE
        • et al.
        Gaining the patient perspective on pelvic floor disorders’ surgical adverse events.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220: 185.e1-185.e10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.033
        • Rockefeller NF
        • Jeppson P
        • Komesu YM
        • Meriwether KV
        • Ninivaggio C
        • Dunivan G.
        Preferences for preoperative education: a qualitative study of the patient perspective.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021; 27 (Accessed January 15, 2022)
        • Hallock JL
        • Rios R
        • Handa VL.
        Patient satisfaction and informed consent for surgery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217: 181.e1-181.e7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.020
        • Nickles D
        • Dolansky M
        • Marek J
        • Burke K.
        Nursing students use of teachback to improve patients’ knowledge and satisfaction: A quality improvement project.
        J Prof Nurs. 2020; 36: 70-76https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.08.005
        • Pereira L
        • Figueiredo-Braga M
        • Carvalho IP.
        Preoperative anxiety in ambulatory surgery: The impact of an empathic patient-centered approach on psychological and clinical outcomes.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2016; 99: 733-738https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.11.016
        • Haller J
        • Keller Z
        • Barr S
        • Hadden K
        • Oliphant SS.
        Assessing Readability: are urogynecologic patient education materials at an appropriate reading level?.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019; 25 (Accessed February 2, 2022)
        • Mulsow JJW
        • Feeley TM
        • Tierney S.
        Beyond consent—improving understanding in surgical patients.
        Am J Surg. 2012; 203: 112-120https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.12.010
        • Wang R
        • Haviland MJ
        • Hacker MR
        • Lefevre R.
        Effect of visual aids during surgical consents on patient understanding and satisfaction.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020; 26: 746-750https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000703
        • Fink AS
        • Prochazka AV
        • Henderson WG
        • et al.
        Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210 (Accessed February 2, 2022)
        • Degerliyurt K
        • Gunsolley JC
        • Laskin DM.
        Informed consent: what do patients really want to know?.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 1849-1852https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.04.004
        • Lynch R
        • Toozs-Hobson P
        • Duckett J
        • Tincello D
        • Cohn S.
        Making a decision about surgery for female urinary incontinence: a qualitative study of women's views.
        Int Urogynecology J. 2021; 32: 127-133https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04383-5