RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of selecting treatment for nasal obstruction on the basis of a structured physiology-based assessment protocol on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study. SETTING: District general hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A population of 71 patients with a mean age of 33 years, containing 36 males, presented with nasal obstruction for consideration of nasal surgery. All patients underwent a structured clinical assessment, skin prick allergy testing and oral-nasal flow-volume loop examination. Fifty-one patients completed the follow-up, and mean follow-up was 11 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NOSE, SNOT-22 and NASION scales. RESULTS: Of the 51 patients who completed follow-up, six had conservative treatment, 28 had septal/turbinate surgery, and 17 underwent nasal valve surgery. Mean NOSE score fell from 68 ± 18 to 39 ± 31 following the treatment. Mean SNOT-22 score fell from 47 ± 20 to 29 ± 26 following the treatment. The difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment NOSE and SNOT-22 scores were statistically significant. Success rate of septal/turbinate surgery in patients without nasal allergy was 88%, and this fell to 42% in patients undergoing septal/turbinate surgery who also had nasal allergy. Presence of nasal allergy was the only independent predictor of treatment failure. Patients with nasal valve surgery reported significantly greater symptomatic improvement following surgery. The newly formed NASION scale demonstrated internal consistency with a Cronbach α of 0.9 and excellent change-responsiveness and convergent validity with correlation coefficients of 0.64 and 0.77 against treatment-related changes in SNOT-22 and NOSE scales, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Successful surgical outcomes can be achieved with the use of a structured history, clinical evaluation and physiological testing. Flow-volume loops can help elucidate the cause of nasal obstruction. The newly formed NASION scale is a validated retrospective single time-point patient outcome measure.
Assuntos
Obstrução Nasal/cirurgia , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Adulto , Tomada de Decisões , Feminino , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Estudos Prospectivos , Testes CutâneosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to audit doctors' knowledge of their hospital's major incident policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and post-intervention interviews were conducted with doctors selected at random in a central London teaching hospital on where to report to in a major incident. Doctors working in hospitals with accident and emergency departments within the M25 motorway were asked if they had read or received training on their hospital's major incident policy. RESULTS: Pre-intervention, 4.4% of doctors knew where to report to in a major incident. A 1-sided information sheet on the major incident policy was distributed to doctors and posted in areas frequented by doctors. Following this intervention, 78% of doctors knew where to report to in a major incident. Doctors in only 2 out of 38 hospitals with accident and emergency departments within the M25 corridor had read or received training on their major incident policy. CONCLUSIONS: More needs to be done by hospitals to ensure that doctors have a better awareness of their hospital major incident policy.