MP18-10 INTERNET-BASED PATIENT SURVEY ON UROLITHIASIS TREATMENT AND PATIENT SATISFACTION

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Therapy II1 Apr 2014MP18-10 INTERNET-BASED PATIENT SURVEY ON UROLITHIASIS TREATMENT AND PATIENT SATISFACTION Thenappan Chandrasekar, Manoj Monga, Mike Nguyen, and Roger Low Thenappan ChandrasekarThenappan Chandrasekar More articles by this author , Manoj MongaManoj Monga More articles by this author , Mike NguyenMike Nguyen More articles by this author , and Roger LowRoger Low More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.772AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We theorized that the internet could provide access to a large number of patients with urolithiasis and allow rapid accumulation of clinical information from a large and diverse patient population. We created an internet-based survey of patients having had treatment for either a kidney or ureteral stone to evaluate for trends in treatment, outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS We used the website “kidneystoners.org” to disseminate a survey on the treatment of urolithiasis and its outcomes from the patients’ perspective. Website visitors were more likely to originate from the US (72%), be female (69%), be college educated (45%), and be Caucasian (81%). The survey queried respondents on treatment type, outcome, and satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was correlated with treatment type and outcome. Chi-square and ANOVA tests were used to compare responses between treatment types. RESULTS 443 respondents completed the survey. The majority (46%) were treated ureteroscopically, followed by ESWL (25%) and PCNL (7%). Other treatments included passing a stone (13%), medications to pass a stone (7%), and home remedies (2%). The most common reasons for choosing a treatment was MD recommendation (61%) or for highest chance of success (18%). 64% of respondents deemed their treatment “successful”, while 36% reported their treatment as either “partially successful” or “unsuccessful”. Unsuccessful treatment was more likely for ESWL (17%) and home remedies (14%) (p=0.002). 186 respondents (44%) reported needing a second treatment to treat their stone. Most respondents (52%) reported being either satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment choice. Satisfaction did not vary significantly by treatment type but was significantly associated with treatment success (mean satisfaction 3.8 / 5 for successful versus 1.9 / 5 for unsuccessful treatment; p<0.0001). 55% reported either being “definitely” or “pretty likely” to choose to the same treatment again. Likelihood did not vary significantly by treatment type. Respondents most commonly reported dissatisfaction with the need for a stent (29%), delay in treatment (23%), and pain during recovery (18%) associated with their stone treatment. CONCLUSIONS Use of the internet allows rapid gathering of patient information from a large geographic distribution. Our survey is consistent with previous studies in demonstrating an increased use of ureteroscopy to treat both renal and ureteral calculi. In general, patients are satisfied with treatment outcomes despite a large percentage of people reporting needing to have secondary procedures. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e207 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Thenappan Chandrasekar More articles by this author Manoj Monga More articles by this author Mike Nguyen More articles by this author Roger Low More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...