ArticleNursing open2025
Patient-Controlled Sedation During Gynaecological Procedures-Aspects of Patient Satisfaction, Feasibility and Cost Per Patient: Empirical Research Quantitative.
Article in Nursing open, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the use of patient-controlled sedation with propofol in outpatients with anxiety and fear of gynaecological procedures, considering patient satisfaction, feasibility and costs.
designThis quantitative study used a descriptive retrospective design. REVIEW
methodsThis study evaluated patient satisfaction, procedure feasibility and direct costs for PCS with propofol for outpatients with anxiety and fear of gynaecological outpatient procedures. Data including patient age and evaluation of the procedure, as well as procedure-related information describing the type of procedure, duration of the procedure, drugs used, vital signs, interventions and evaluations by staff was extracted from medical records. DATA SOURCES: Data was collected from the medical records of all outpatients who completed a gynaecological procedure using PCS with propofol during the period February 2021 until July 2023 at the GC, Vrinnevi Hospital (Sweden).
resultsA total of 128 gynaecological procedures with patient-controlled sedation were performed successfully. Few transient cardiopulmonary events occurred (n = 13), and only one needed use of a jaw thrust to resolve desaturation. The feasibility of the procedure and sedation were assessed to 'Easy' (84%, 96%) and no sedation-related cancellations of the procedure were reported. Patients' overall satisfaction was high and they were reported to be 'Very satisfied' in 86% of the procedures. The mean cost per patient was 85% lower when the procedure was completed at a gynaecological outpatient clinic instead of a daycare surgical unit.
conclusionPatient-controlled sedation outpatients with anxiety and fear for gynaecological procedures has been shown to be a well-tolerated method of sedation that gives high patient satisfaction, allows procedures to be completed in a high-quality way and has the potential reduce direct costs. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Patient-controlled sedation with propofol in outpatients with anxiety and fear of gynaecological procedures may improve patient satisfaction and procedure with the potential to reduce direct costs. IMPACT: The findings of this study contribute to the growing body of knowledge on patient-controlled sedation (PCS) in gynaecological procedures. By demonstrating that PCS with propofol is feasible, safe and associated with high patient satisfaction, this study highlights its potential to reduce patient anxiety and improve the sense of control during procedures. In addition, PCS may decrease the need for premedication with oral benzodiazepines and reduce referrals to day-surgery units, thereby saving healthcare resources and increasing accessibility for patients. Taken together, the results suggest that PCS can be an important tool in enhancing both the quality and efficiency of gynaecological care. REPORTING
methodReporting followed the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.