Patient expectations and satisfaction following orthognathic surgery.

Orthognathic surgery aims to correct dentoskeletal and facial discrepancies. Treatment usually requires a minimum of 18 months, necessitating that patients are adequately satisfied with the treatment provided. This study aimed to assess the determinants of patient satisfaction following treatment. One hundred and eighteen patients who had undergone orthognathic surgery were included prospectively. All participants completed a questionnaire regarding their reasons for undergoing treatment, treatment logistics, treatment outcomes, and satisfaction throughout their journey. Most patients were 'very satisfied' (71.2%) or 'satisfied' (19.5%) with the overall treatment. The majority wished to improve their smile (78.0%); post-treatment, 89.0% of patients reported an improved smile. Almost half of the patients (46.6%) stayed in hospital for only one night, and 41.5% took over 4 weeks off work or school post-surgery. People with postoperative breathing difficulties spent more days in hospital (P=0.021), but importantly, the duration of hospital stay did not differ between maxillary advancement, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and bimaxillary surgery (P=0.78). In conclusion, patient satisfaction was high following orthognathic treatment. The results highlight areas for improvement, such as information delivery to the patient throughout the treatment journey, and show that the presence of ongoing problems is an important predictor of patient satisfaction.

Assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of a specific capacity assessment administered by the treating clinician, and a Standardized Mini-Mental Status Examination (SMMSE), with the results of expert assessments of patient capacity to consent to treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with independent comparison to expert capacity assessments. SETTING: Inpatient medical wards at an academic secondary and tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred consecutive inpatients facing a decision about a major medical treatment or an invasive medical procedure. Participants either were refusing treatment, or were accepting treatment but were not clearly capable according to the treating clinician. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The treating clinician (medical resident or student) conducted a specific capacity assessment on each participant, using a decisional aid called the Aid to Capacity Evaluation. A specific capacity assessment is a semistructured evaluation of the participant's ability to understand relevant information and appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences with regard to the specific treatment decision. Participants also received a SMMSE administered by a research nurse. Participants then had two independent expert assessments of capacity. If the two expert assessments disagreed, then an independent adjudication panel resolved the disagreement after reviewing videotapes of both expert assessments. Using the two expert assessments and the adjudication panel as the reference standard, we calculated areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.90 for specific capacity assessment by treating clinician and 0.93 for SMMSE score (2p =.48). For the treating clinician's specific capacity assessment, likelihood ratios for detecting incapacity were as follows: definitely incapable, 20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3. 6, 120); probably incapable, 6.1 (95% CI 2.6, 15); probably capable, 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.81); and definitely capable, 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.29). For the SMMSE, a score of 0 to 16 had a likelihood ratio of 15 (95% CI 5.3, 44), a score of 17 to 23 had a likelihood ratio of 0. 68 (95% CI 0.35, 1.2), and a score of 24 to 30 had a likelihood ratio of 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Specific capacity assessments by the treating clinician and SMMSE scores agree closely with results of expert assessments of capacity. Clinicians can use these practical, flexible, and evaluated measures as the initial step in the assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment.