Patient satisfaction with outpatient management of sickle cell pain crisis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Introduction: Vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) causing pain is the most common reason for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) to present to the emergency department (ED) for assessment. There have been many identified barriers to the provision of quality care in the ED setting for patients experiencing VOC. As a result, many SCD patients prefer to avoid the ED if possible. Patients followed by the Edmonton Hemoglobinopathy Clinic experiencing early VOC symptoms can present to the Medical Outpatient Unit (MOU), to be assessed and receive treatment from their personalized pain plan. We conducted a survey of SCD patients to assess their satisfaction with treatment in MOU. Methods: The study population was adult patients with diagnosis of SCD followed by the Hemoglobinopathy Clinic in Edmonton. Those with a prior presentation to MOU were given the survey to complete on a voluntary basis, from January to July 2025. The survey included 13 questions on a 1-5 Likert scale pertaining to aspects of their care at MOU as opposed to the ED (Table 1). Responses of “satisfied” or “very satisfied” were counted as being satisfied with the statement, while responses of “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” were counted as being dissatisfied. Results: 47 patients completed the survey with a mean age of 35 years (min 18, max 70). There was a high level of satisfaction with each of the statements (75-98%), including statements related to respect and knowledge of healthcare providers, receiving appropriate pain medications, and the location and facility features in the MOU. 80% of patients were satisfied that available appointment times were convenient for them. Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrated high patient satisfaction with VOC treatment in the MOU. This will be especially important with recent changes resulting in MOU being used for ED overflow limiting the amount of MOU appointments available.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.