Author
Listed:
- Aleksandra Karewicz
- Katarzyna Faber
- Katarzyna Karon
- Katarzyna Januszewska
- Joanna Ryl
- Piotr Korczynski
- Katarzyna Gorska
- Marta Dabrowska
- Rafal Krenke
Abstract
Background: The bronchoscopy (BS) experience provokes anxiety amongst some patients. It can have a negative impact on the course of the procedure and on the willingness of patients to undergo the next BS in the future. Objective: We aimed to identify factors influencing patients’ satisfaction with BS. Methods: The prospective study had been conducted between January and June 2019. It included patients hospitalized in our Department, who underwent elective BS. Patients assessed their anxiety and satisfaction level before and after BS using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Data concerning the course of the bronchoscopy was collected. Results: The median level of anxiety prior to the procedure was moderate, higher in women (p 5/10). Overall 113 (90%) patients declared unconditional consent for future bronchoscopy. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed two factors affecting patients’ satisfaction with bronchoscopy: anxiety prior to BS (standardized regression coefficient β = 0.264, p = 0.003) and discomfort (β = 0.205, p = 0.018). Neither age, degree of amnesia, duration of the procedure nor its type added any significant value as factors affecting patient satisfaction. The most common factors inducing patients’ discomfort during BS were local anesthesia of the throat (56/125, 45%) and cough (47/125, 38%). Conclusions: Low anxiety level before bronchoscopy and reduced discomfort during the procedure are associated with better patient satisfaction. Thus, it is important to reduce patient anxiety and discomfort during the procedure.
Suggested Citation
Aleksandra Karewicz & Katarzyna Faber & Katarzyna Karon & Katarzyna Januszewska & Joanna Ryl & Piotr Korczynski & Katarzyna Gorska & Marta Dabrowska & Rafal Krenke, 2022.
"Evaluation of patients’ satisfaction with bronchoscopy procedure,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0274377
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274377
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0274377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.