header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

SATISFACTION WITH TELEPHONE CLINIC TO FOLLOW UP FOR SPINAL POSTOPERATIVE PATIENTS



Abstract

Aim: To evaluate patient satisfaction between telephone and traditional outpatient appointments following un-instrumented spinal surgery.

Material and Methods: The study was approved by the local audit committee. Fifty seven patients who underwent un-instrumented lumbar spinal micro-decompressive surgery in 2008 were identified from Bluespiers database and were contacted by telephone. A predesigned proforma was used to collect data. Ten patients had not yet had follow-up at the time of study and were excluded. Results of 47 patients were analysed and are described. No loss to follow up was encountered.

Results: Average age was 60 (Range 23 to 89 years) with 21 male (45%) and 26 female (55%). Majority (77%) of patients rated telephone follow-up as good or excellent. Average delay between scheduled appointment time and contact with the clinician was 47 minutes in traditional clinic. Majority (84%) of patients were contacted in time in telephonic clinic with minority (16%) experienced an average delay of 28 minutes. Majority (93%) of patients would recommend telephone follow up clinic and (70%) reported telephone follow-up was better or much better than traditional clinic. Reasons for preferring telephone follow-up included delay in the clinic, saving travel time and no need to find parking space. Six percent were dissatisfied with telephone clinic the reason being hearing impairment and desire to discuss their condition face-to-face.

Conclusion: Telephone follow-up clinic for un-instrumented spinal surgery appears to be a safe cost effective satisfactory alternative for the majority of patients. However traditional clinical follow up may be required for a proportion of patients.

Conflict of Interest: None

Source of Funding: None

Correspondence should be addressed to: SBPR at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England.