Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38802270›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Mapping patient education encounters in elective surgery: a cohort study and cross-sectional survey.

James Booker, Jack Penn, Chan Hee Koh, Nicola Newall, David Rowland, Siddharth Sinha, John G Hanrahan, Simon C Williams, Parag Sayal, Hani J Marcus

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

James BookerVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK james.booker.19@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7588-2827
Jack PennVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Chan Hee KohVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Nicola NewallVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
David RowlandVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Siddharth SinhaVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
John G HanrahanVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Simon C WilliamsWellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Parag SayalVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Hani J MarcusVictor Horsely Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDevelop a process map of when patients learn about their proposed surgery and what resources patients use to educate themselves.

designA mixed methods design, combining semistructured stakeholder interviews, quantitative validation using electronic healthcare records (EHR) in a retrospective cohort and a cross-sectional patient survey.

settingA single surgical centre in the UK.

participantsFourteen members of the spinal multidisciplinary team were interviewed to develop the process map.This process map was validated using the EHR of 50 patients undergoing elective spine surgery between January and June 2022. Postprocedure, feedback was gathered from 25 patient surveys to identify which resources they used to learn about their spinal procedure. Patients below the age of 18 or who received emergency surgery were excluded.

interventionsElective spine surgery and patient questionnaires given postoperatively either on the ward or in follow-up clinic. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of the study cohort that was present at encounters on the process map. Key timepoints were defined if >80% of patients were present. The secondary outcome was the percentage of the study cohort that used educational resources listed in the patient questionnaire.

resultsThere were 342 encounters which occurred across the cohort, with 16 discrete event categories identified. The initial surgical clinic (88%), anaesthetic preoperative assessment (96%) and admission for surgery (100%) were identified as key timepoints. Surveys identified that patients most used verbal information from their surgeon (100%) followed by written information from their surgeon (52%) and the internet (40%) to learn about their surgery.

conclusionsProcess mapping is an effective method of illustrating the patient pathway. The initial surgical clinic, anaesthetic preoperative assessment and surgical admission are key timepoints where patients receive information. This has future implications for guiding patient education interventions to focus at key timepoints.

Indexed as

Elective Surgical ProceduresPatient Education as TopicAdultAgedCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomMedical educationProcess mappingSurgery

Identifiers

PMID38802270
PMCPMC11131119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.