ArticleBJGP open2019
Assessing patient satisfaction with a microsuction service in general practice: a comparative study.
Article in BJGP open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the UK, about 2.3 million people each year require intervention for wax impaction, while otitis externa accounts for just over 1% of general practice consultations. Aural microsuction of debris from the ear canal is a commonly performed procedure within the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) outpatient clinic. This article examines the patient acceptability of an aural microsuction service delivered in general practice.
aimTo determine patient satisfaction following the introduction of a new microsuction service in general practice compared with a hospital-delivered service. DESIGN &
settingThis is a prospective comparative study in two rural general practices in Ireland and the emergency department (ED) of the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital (RVEEH), Dublin.
methodA 3-month period of data collection on usual care of 56 patients in general practice was followed by a 3-month period of GP-intervention data collection on 67 patients. Comparative data were collected on 37 patients who attended the RVEEH for the same intervention procedure. Patients completed a validated patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ-18).
resultsBoth general practice groups scored significantly higher in all seven aspects of medical care than the RVEEH cohort. Patients in the GP-intervention group scored significantly higher in terms of satisfaction with procedure technique compared with the usual care GP group.
conclusionThe provision of microsuction as a service in general practice confers as much or more patient satisfaction as the provision of the service in a hospital setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.