Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The value of outpatient appointments for postoperative review has been questioned for many years, and the surgeon practice around this issue is varied. The aim of this study, as part of a larger study assessing postoperative follow-up, was to assess how many patients self-present to their general practitioner (GP) or the emergency department after surgery for urogynaecology procedures.
Methods
A retrospective observational study of postoperative urogynaecology patients between 2007 and 2012 was performed using the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) database to identify patients. These records were correlated with hospital and GP records to assess whether any patient was seen postoperatively for a procedure-related problem.
Results
There were 244 patients with complete data on the BSUG database, of whom 25 (10 %) presented to hospital/secondary care in the year following their surgery; only three of these were admitted for problems related to their surgery. There was a response rate of 70 % from GPs for access to their records. This represented 171 patients, 90 of whom (52.3 %) presented to their GP within a year of surgery mostly for a minor procedure-related event: 11 of these were re-referred to secondary care, and the remainder were treated in the community.
Conclusions
The most important aspect of patient care is safety, and this should not be compromised if, for example, postoperative review were to be moved to primary care. As expected, this study shows that patients will self-present if they have problems postoperatively.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
NICE (2006) Urinary incontinence ‘The management of urinary incontinence in women’, p. 1–36
Florey CV et al (1994) A randomized trial of immediate discharge of surgical patients to general practice. J Public Health Med 16(4):455–464
Worrall SF (1996) Are postoperative review appointments necessary following uncomplicated minor oral surgery? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 34(6):495–499
Waghorn A, Thompson J, McKee M (1995) Routine surgical follow up: do surgeons agree? BMJ 311(7016):1344–1345
Faulkner A et al (1995) Outpatients revisited: subjective views and clinical decisions in the management of general surgical outpatients in south west England. J Epidemiol Community Health 49(6):599–605
Haylen BT et al (2011) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22(1):3–15
Bailey IS et al (1992) Community surveillance of complications after hernia surgery. BMJ 304(6825):469–471
Bailey J, Roland M, Roberts C (1999) Is follow up by specialists routinely needed after elective surgery? A controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):118–124
Williams HR et al (1998) Out-patient follow-up after routine surgery: a questionnaire study. J R Coll Surg Edinb 43(4):251–253
O’Brien TS, Perkins JM, Cranston D (1995) Efficiency in the outpatient department: the lessons from urology. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 77(4):287–289
Ulmsten U, Johnson P, Rezapour M (1999) A three-year follow up of tension free vaginal tape for surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106(4):345–350
Ward K et al (2002) Prospective multicentre randomised trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension as primary treatment for stress incontinence. BMJ 325(7355):67
International Urogynaecological Association (2011) Anterior vaginal repair (Bladder Repair). A guide for women. In: International urogynaecological association, IUGA. (Ed.) p. 1–3
Price N et al (2006) Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. BJOG 113(6):700–712
Avery K et al (2004) ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 23(4):322–330
Trochez R, Harber P, Holmes D (2012) Is postal postoperative follow-up in urogynaecology feasible? J Obstet Gynaecol 32(7):663–665
Bateman AG, Neilens H, Freeman RM (2013) Is telephone consultation an acceptable method of following up patients after Urogynaecology surgery? A pilot randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynaecol J 24(1):1–152
Acknowledgments
This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West of England. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Financial disclosures/Conflict of interest
RMF is scientific editor of the International Urogynecology Journal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bateman, A.G., Neilens, H., Gericke, C.A. et al. Is there a need for postoperative follow-up after routine urogynaecological procedures? Patients will self-present if they have problems. Int Urogynecol J 25, 381–386 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2229-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2229-1