Patient education after Arthroplasty: what about the implants?
European Statement
Education and Research
Author(s)
Lionel Tortolano, Quentin Misandeau, Muriel Paul, Valérie Archer
Why was it done?
The main objective was to make give more information to the patients and draw their attention on the implant and the signs of adverse events.
What was done?
In 2018, in order to respond to both the sanitary traceability regulatory and the iatrogenic prevention, we initiated a new education session for patients after their hip or knew surgery.
How was it done?
First, the educational tools were developed in collaboration with surgeons, nurses and physiotherapist.
Each patient is seen after his surgery for the educational interview. At the beginning, the pharmacist asks him questions grouped in 4 themes: the implant, adverse events, prohibited movements and medicines.
According to patient answers, the pharmacist gives him complementary information and documents: an implant card and a booklet, which summarized all essential keys about adverse events and the return home.
We measured the efficiency of our education sessions on the knowledge of 80 patients. After the education session, before the return home, the patient was asked a second time to respond to all questions previously asked. The difference of good answers was considered as an increase of awareness.
What has been achieved?
The results show significant impact of this education session on all items especially those regarding the implants and medicines.
What next?
Since this feasibility study, we perpetuate those education sessions. We initiate a randomized prospective study to measure the impact 6 month after surgery on patient knowledge and potential impact on adverse event incidence rate. The result of this second study are expected to spring 2022.
SESAME QUIZ: A PLAYFUL ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSESS PATIENTS’ KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SJOGREN’S SYNDROME
Pdf
European Statement
Education and Research
Author(s)
Charlotte Ménage-Anjuère, Rakiba Belkir, Elisabeth Bergé, Audrey Decottignies, André Rieutord, Xavier Mariette, Raphaèle Séror
Why was it done?
We needed to assess the impact of our patient education program on Sjogren’s syndrome (SESAME) in order to continuously improve it.
What was done?
A playful online questionnaire was designed and implemented to assess patients’ knowledge about Sjogren’s syndrome.
How was it done?
A interprofessional team (3 rheumatologists, 3 pharmacists) and a 4-patient group who participated in the education program together proceeded to the questionnaire design: 1) definition of a competency framework for patients with Sjogren’s syndrome; 2) from literature review, identification of quality requirements for a questionnaire (scientific quality, opportunity to interact, means of expression, logical chaining of questions, simplicity, utility, shortness, bias prevention, playfulness, variety, online diffusion). To fulfill these criteria, we used a clear vocabulary and concise questions, included open-ended questions on patient experience, focused on the artwork, randomized the order of answer choices, and shared the questionnaire online. Once the SESAME quiz was established, a scoring system was defined by the expert group. Face validity, feasibility and reproducibility were assessed to validate the questionnaire. 25 patients were contacted to complete the questionnaire twice. Patients also evaluated the content, structure and feasibility using 12 items (understandable language, unambiguous sentences, length of the questionnaire, difficulty, web access). Reproducibility was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) on patient answers separated by 48 hours.
What has been achieved?
The questionnaire includes 28 questions divided into 4 parts: Sjogren’s signs, Sjogren’s causes, treatment, daily life with the disease. The 25 patients filled in the questionnaire twice (96% women, 54 years min-max[23;74], 4 years since the diagnosis min-max[1;20]). The questionnaire was filled in from a computer (n=38), a tablet (n=3) or a smartphone (n=9). The average response time was 19 minutes. The median score was 34 points min-max[22;46] out of 50. 18 patients evaluated the questionnaire. 15 patients or more regarded its content, organization and feasibility as “very good”. 5 patients found it difficult. The reproducibility was very high (total ICC = 0.87 IC95% [0.74-0.94], ICC on each part between 0.61 et 0.87).
What next?
The SESAME quiz is now freely available (https://etp-rhumato.typeform.com/to/qsVhR1) and all the Hospital centers caring for Sjogren patients can use it for their follow up.