Can the Iowa Satisfaction with Anesthesia Scale Be Used to Measure Patient Satisfaction with Cataract Care Under Topical Local Anesthesia and Monitored Sedation at a Community Hospital?
Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaAnesthesia & Analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.47). 07/2005; 100(6):1637-43. DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000154203.00434.23
Patient satisfaction ratings provide a means to evaluate and monitor quality of health care. We tested the ability of the Iowa Satisfaction with Anesthesia Scale (ISAS) to measure satisfaction with cataract care under topical local anesthesia and monitored sedation given by an anesthesiologist at a community hospital. Three hundred six patients were administered the ISAS along with alternate ratings of quality of care and patient satisfaction. There were no incomplete questionnaires. The ISAS demonstrated reasonable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.68; test-retest = 0.48-0.67). The ISAS had excellent construct validity; ISAS scores were lower in patients who gave lower ratings of quality (4.98 versus 5.64), who had lower satisfaction visual analog scale scores (5.12 versus 5.65), who wanted changes in their care (4.76 versus 5.67), who had suggestions to improve care (5.08 versus 5.63), or who preferred more sedation (4.85 versus 5.66) (P < 0.0001). Our results indicate that the ISAS questionnaire is a feasible, reliable, and valid tool to measure patient satisfaction in patients undergoing cataract surgery under topical anesthesia and monitored sedation.
Full-text previewDOI: · Available from: anesthesia-analgesia.org
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "This research assistant was masked to the type of anesthetic used in each eye. The ISAS questionnaire is considered feasible, reliable, and a valid tool to measure patient's satisfaction in cataract surgery under topical anesthesia and monitored sedation. "
ABSTRACT: Various studies have assessed patient satisfaction with topical versus peribulbar anesthesia with conflicting results. Aim of study was to determine satisfaction level in same patient who gets topical anesthesia in one eye and peribulbar block in another eye. We propose that evaluation of various indicators of patient satisfaction will enable better selection of cases for topical anesthesia in the future. Eighty patients scheduled for phacoemulsification were enrolled in prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Each patient scheduled twice for one eye under topical anesthesia and other in peribulbar block. Pain, discomfort and pressure during application of local anesthetic, during phacoemulsification and at 2 hours after procedure were assessed on standard scales. Before discharge patient satisfaction level was checked with Iowa satisfaction with anesthesia scale (ISAS). The Student's t-test was used to determine the significance of IOWA score in both groups. P<0.05 was considered significant. Feeling of pain, pressure and discomfort scores during administration of topical anesthesia were all significantly lower compared to peribulbar anesthesia (P=0.004, 0.000, 0.002, respectively). In contrast, intraoperative scores were significantly higher in the topical anesthesia group compared to peribulbar anesthesia (P=0.022, 0.000, 0.000, respectively). Patient satisfaction measured with ISAS shows that peribulbar anesthesia with P=0.000 is strongly significant. Peribulbar anesthesia provided significantly better patient satisfaction in comparison with topical anesthesia when used for cataract surgery.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "5. Evaluation of patient's satisfaction through the filling of the The Iowa Satisfaction with Anaesthesia Scale (ISAS, table 2) 24 hours after surgery. "
ABSTRACT: Many studies have attempted to determine the "best" anaesthetic technique for neurosurgical procedures in patients without intracranial hypertension. So far, no study comparing intravenous (IA) with volatile-based neuroanaesthesia (VA) has been able to demonstrate major outcome differences nor a superiority of one of the two strategies in patients undergoing elective supratentorial neurosurgery. Therefore, current practice varies and includes the use of either volatile or intravenous anaesthetics in addition to narcotics. Actually the choice of the anaesthesiological strategy depends only on the anaesthetists' preferences or institutional policies. This trial, named NeuroMorfeo, aims to assess the equivalence between volatile and intravenous anaesthetics for neurosurgical procedures. NeuroMorfeo is a multicenter, randomized, open label, controlled trial, based on an equivalence design. Patients aged between 18 and 75 years, scheduled for elective craniotomy for supratentorial lesion without signs of intracranial hypertension, in good physical state (ASA I-III) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) equal to 15, are randomly assigned to one of three anaesthesiological strategies (two VA arms, sevoflurane + fentanyl or sevoflurane + remifentanil, and one IA, propofol + remifentanil). The equivalence between intravenous and volatile-based neuroanaesthesia will be evaluated by comparing the intervals required to reach, after anaesthesia discontinuation, a modified Aldrete score > or = 9 (primary end-point). Two statistical comparisons have been planned: 1) sevoflurane + fentanyl vs. propofol + remifentanil; 2) sevoflurane + remifentanil vs. propofol + remifentanil. Secondary end-points include: an assessment of neurovegetative stress based on (a) measurement of urinary catecholamines and plasma and urinary cortisol and (b) estimate of sympathetic/parasympathetic balance by power spectrum analyses of electrocardiographic tracings recorded during anaesthesia; intraoperative adverse events; evaluation of surgical field; postoperative adverse events; patient's satisfaction and analysis of costs. 411 patients will be recruited in 14 Italian centers during an 18-month period. We presented the development phase of this anaesthesiological on-going trial. The recruitment started December 4th, 2007 and up to 4th, December 2008, 314 patients have been enrolled.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Summary OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of early complications of outpatient external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) and patient satisfaction with the anesthetic technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective study enrolled 58 patients undergoing external DCR. We analyzed demographic variables, ASA physical status, level of sedation achieved, postoperative pain, systemic complications, intraoperative bleeding, duration of surgery, time until discharge home, and patient and surgeon satisfaction with the anesthetic technique. RESULTS: The mean (SD) level of satisfaction was 4.85 (0.80) points on the Iowa Satisfaction With Anesthesia Scale (ISAS). A positive association was found between postoperative pain and a lower ISAS score. There was also a positive association between use of rescue analgesia in the early postoperative period and a lower ISAS score. Mean blood loss per procedure was 178.9 (108.2) mL. The rate of minor systemic complications was 15.5%. The surgeon's rating of conditions in the surgical field was excellent or good in 89.6% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: External DCR can be performed on an outpatient basis within a reasonable safety margin and with a low early postoperative complication rate. Patient satisfaction with anesthesia was high. Provision of preoperative information about the meaning of sedation, postoperative analgesia, and surgical bleeding are aspects to improve in this practice setting.