Patient satisfaction with personal patient care (PPC) in the inpatient treatment of endometriosis

  • Sebastian FindekleeEmail author
  • Julia Caroline Radosa
  • Anke Mothes
  • Shadi Younes
  • Silke Schafhaupt
  • Lisa Stotz
  • Panagiotis Sklavounos
  • Erich-Franz Solomayer
  • Marc Philipp Radosa
General Gynecology



The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to validate patient’s satisfaction and surgical complication rate in patients treated at a certified endometriosis centre with personal patient care (PPC).


The implementation of PPC at a gynaecologic treatment centre was retrospectively evaluated by analysing perioperative complications using the Clavien Dindo (CD) classification and patient satisfaction utilizing the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15) for a total of 219 symptomatic endometriosis patients treated surgically at a certified endometriosis centre (Agaplesion Diakonie Hospital, Kassel, Germany) between November 2018 and April 2019. Data from our sample on complication rates and satisfaction were compared with those from reference samples published by Radosa et al. and Jenkinson et al.


An overall complication rate of 10.96% (24 out of 219 patients) was observed. Four endometriosis patients (1.83%) had major complications with complications grade III according to the CD classification system. 155 patients out of 219 chose to answer the PPE-15 (return rate 70.78%). 92 patients (59.35%) reported about problems during their treatment in our hospital in their PPE-15. “Doctors sometimes talked as if I was not here” was the best rated item (1.2%) in our cohort. “Staff gave conflicting information” was the most mentioned item (33.55%) by patients during their hospital stay in relation to patient dissatisfaction.


Incorporation of PPC in the surgical inpatient treatment of endometriosis patients resulted in a low postoperative complication rate and a high patient satisfaction in our study cohort. Furthermore, nursing staff of endometriosis patients also needs particular attention.


Endometriosis-patient reported outcomes Consultation Personal patient care 


Author contributions

S. F: preparation of the manuscript, data analysis, statistics, literature review. J. C. R: statistics. A. M: study design, proof-reading. S. Y: conceptual design, literature review. S. S: data acquisition. L. S: statistics. P. S: language editing, tables. E. F. S: data acquisition, proof reading. M. P. R: conceptual design, data acquisition, language editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted in concordance to the ethical standards of the institution.

Informed consent

Only retrospective data from patient records were analysed without any intervention. All patients gave their agreement in analysing and publishing data anonymously before treatment.


  1. 1.
    Kim JH, Han E (2018) Endometriosis and female pelvic pain. Semin Reprod Med 36(2):143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pringle S (2015) Endometriosis in secondary care. Br J Gen Pract 65(633):175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leidenberger FA (1998) Klinische Endokrinologie für Frauenärzte. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schliep KC, Mumford SL, Peterson SM, Chen Z, Johnstone EB, Sharp HT, Stanford JB, Hammoud AO, Sun L, Buck Louis GM (2015) Pain typology and incident endometriosis. Hum Reprod 30(10):2427–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sarıdoğan E (2016) Adolescent endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2115(16):30233–30240Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malvezzi H, Hernandes C, Piccinato C, Podgaec S (2019) Interleukin in endometriosis-associated infertility-pelvic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproduction 18:0618Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Catenacci M, Falcone T (2008) The effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilization outcome. Minerva Ginecol 60(3):209–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roos-Eysbouts Y, De Bie-Rocks B, Van Dijk J, Nap AW (2015) Characteristics, expectations and needs of the dutch endometriosis society members. Gynecol Obstet Invest 79(4):234–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Huntington A, Gilmour JA (2005) A life shaped by pain: women and endometriosis. J Clin Nurs 14(9):1124–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kundu S, Wildgrube J, Schippert C, Hillemanns P, Brandes I (2015) Supporting and Inhibiting Factors When Coping with Endometriosis From the Patient`s Perspective. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 75(5):462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Health Services. Young people among those set to benefit from lifesaving heart op as part of the NHS Long Term Plan., last update 18.07.2019
  13. 13.
    Bergvik S, Wynn R, Sørlie T (2008) Nurse training of a patient-centered information procedure for CABG patients. Patient Educ Couns 70(2):227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laleci Erturkman GB, Yuksel M, Sarigul B, Lilja M, Chen R, Arvanitis TN (2018) Personalised care plan management utilizing guideline-driven clinical decision support systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 247:750–754Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebert AD, Ulrich U, Keckstein J, Müller M, Schindler AE, Sillem M, Tinneberg HR, De Wilde RL, Schweppe KW (2013) Endometriosis research foundation, and the european endometriosis league implementation of certified endometriosis centers: 5-year experience in German-speaking Europe. Gynecol Obstet Invest 76(1):4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S (2002) The picker patient experience questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care 14:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chi DS, Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR (2004) Ten-year experience with laparoscopy on a gynecologic oncology service: analysis of risk factors for complications and conversion to laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1138–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Radosa MP, Meyberg-Solomayer G, Radosa J, Vorwergk J, Oettler K, Mothes A, Baum S, Juhasz-Boess I, Petri E, Solomayer EF, Runnebaum IB (2014) Standardised registration of surgical complications in laparoscopic-gynaecological therapeutic procedures using the clavien-dindo classification. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 74(8):752–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fagotti A, Boruta DM 2nd, Scambia G, Fanfani F, Paglia A, Escobar PF (2012) First 100 early endometrial cancer cases treated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: a multicentric retrospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:3530–3533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Palomba S, Ghezzi F, Falbo A, Mandato VD, Annunziata G, Lucia E, Cromi A, Abrate M, La Sala GB, Giorda G, Zullo F, Franchi M (2012) Laparoscopic versus abdominal approach to endometrial cancer: a 10-year retrospective multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khazali S, Gorgin A, Mohazzab A, Kargar R, Padmehr R, Shadjoo K, Minas V (2019) Laparoscopic excision of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: a prospective observational study assessing perioperative complications in 244 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299(6):1619–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moret L, Anthoine E, Pourreau A, Beaudeau F, Leclère B (2017) Inpatient satisfaction with medical information received from caregivers: an observational study on the effect of social deprivation. BMC Health Serv Res 17(1):769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Ball J, Bruyneel L, Rafferty AM, Griffiths P (2018) Patient satisfaction with hospital care and nurses in England: an observational study. BMJ Open 8(1):e019189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sturm H, Rieger MA, Martus P, Ueding E, Wagner A, Holderried M, Maschmann J, WorkSafeMed Consortium (2019) Do perceived working conditions and patient safety culture correlate with objective workload and patient outcomes: a cross-sectional explorative study from a German university hospital. PLoS ONE 14(1):e0209487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bach AM, Risoer MB, Forman A, Seibaek L (2016) Practices and attitudes concerning endometriosis among nurses specializing in gynecology. Glob Qual Nurs Res 3:2333393616651351PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ahern T, Gardner A (2015) Literature review: an exploration of the role of the Australian breast care nurse in the provision of information and supportive care. Collegian 22(1):99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Findeklee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julia Caroline Radosa
    • 1
  • Anke Mothes
    • 2
  • Shadi Younes
    • 3
    • 4
  • Silke Schafhaupt
    • 3
  • Lisa Stotz
    • 1
  • Panagiotis Sklavounos
    • 1
  • Erich-Franz Solomayer
    • 1
  • Marc Philipp Radosa
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department for Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive MedicineSaarland University HospitalHomburgGermany
  2. 2.Department for Gynaecology and ObstetricsSt. Georg Hospital EisenachEisenachGermany
  3. 3.Department for GynaecologyAgaplesion Diakonie Kliniken KasselKasselGermany
  4. 4.Department for GynaecologyUniversity Hospital LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations