A study of special care dental patient preference toward choice of mask and visor use by dental clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Do patients have a preference for the clinician's choice of face protection (visor or mask), and can this make a difference to the patient's feelings of anxiety? METHOD: In a normative sample (n = 72) of patients from Special Care Dentistry, different combinations of face protection were studied to see whether the patients clearly preferred one type over another, and whether that was related to the levels of anxiety they suffered, based on the modified dental anxiety scale. RESULTS: The majority of patients, 68% had the visor only as their first choice of face protection. This was followed by 22% having the mask only as their first choice and 10% having the visor and mask combination as their first choice. Patients with higher anxiety levels were more likely to believe that the type of face protection worn by the dentist would affect their levels of anxiety. CONCLUSION: The patients preferred the visor only option. As the level of anxiety rose, so did the percentage of patients that felt the style of protection worn by the dentist would affect their level of anxiety. The comments from patients referred to the benefit of nonverbal communication offered by the visor.

Postoperative ambulation in thoracic surgery patients: standard versus modern ambulation methods.

AIM: A single-subject study of two methods of postoperative ambulation of patients recovering from thoracic surgery. BACKGROUND: During the postoperative setting, patients are often burdened by their condition that reduces their ability to ambulate. This problem is compounded by the addition of devices that make walking more cumbersome. To simplify the process of ambulation during the postoperative period, an intravenous pole/walker (IVPW) was specifically designed to allow all patient devices and attachments to accompany the patient during ambulation, without the need for supplemental caregiver assistance. METHODS: The IVPW method of ambulation was compared with standard method of ambulation (SMA) in a single-subject clinical trial. Thirty-nine consecutive thoracic surgery patients with at least an IV and chest tube were ambulated using alternatively either the IVPW or the SMA. Immediately following the ambulation periods, the patient and patient's health care worker assessed both methods using satisfaction surveys consisting of several questions about the episodes of ambulation and the number of health care workers needed to assist during ambulation. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the ability of the IVPW to provide support and assist in ambulation in comparison with the SMA (p < 0·001). Nurses felt the IVPW both facilitated and provided a safer method for ambulation compared with the SMA (p < 0·001). On average, one less employee was required during ambulation with the IVPW (p < 0·001). CONCLUSION: The IVPW provided better support and was perceived as a safer method for ambulation compared with the SMA. The IVPW also required one less person to assist with ambulation. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Facilitation of ambulation in the postoperative setting can impact nursing care and patient satisfaction.