Skip to main content

Wertigkeit von 5 Kernaspekten der Prämedikationsvisite

Ergebnisse einer Patientenbefragung

Relevance of five core aspects of the pre-anesthesia visit

Results of a patient survey

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Prämedikationsambulanzen bedingen organisatorische Veränderungen der anästhesiologischen Patientenbetreuung. Unklar bleibt, ob Patientenbedürfnisse dabei ausreichend abgebildet werden.

Methoden

Mithilfe der „Willingness-to-pay“-Methode wurde die relative Bedeutung von 5 Kernaspekten der Prämedikation (Prämedikationsort, Wartezeit, Arzt-Patient-Beziehung, Einsatz von Multimedia und Ambiente) bei 1058 Patienten untersucht.

Ergebnisse

Die Prämedikation durch den später behandelnden Arzt (Arzt) war das Kernanliegen der Patienten. Wartezeit, Prämedikationsort, Multimedia und Ambiente waren nachrangig. Diese Präferenz bestand trotz geschlechts- und altersspezifischer Investitionsvarianzen.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Ergebnisse sprechen gegen die Integration einer Prämedikationsambulanz in die anästhesiologische Patientenversorgung, da das persönliche Kennenlernen des behandelnden Anästhesisten für Patienten im Vordergrund steht. Ist eine Ambulanz dennoch erforderlich, müssen statt der persönlichen Arzt-Patient-Bindung andere vertrauensbildende Konzepte erarbeitet werden. Ein diesbezüglicher Ansatzpunkt könnte beispielsweise die Förderung einer „corporate identity“ der gesamten Anästhesieabteilung sein.

Abstract

Background

Due to a variety of reasons (e.g. increase in outpatient surgery and legal restrictions related to working hours) it has become increasingly more difficult to have the pre-anesthesia visit and the anesthesia carried out by the same anesthetist. In the light of these organizational changes as well as increasing economical pressure it has become common practice to implement pre-anesthesia assessment clinics. It is unclear, however, if these changes in anesthetic patient care respect patient needs.

Methods

By means of a survey using the willingness to pay method, the relative significance of five quality aspects (location of pre-anesthesia visit, waiting time, patient-physician relationship, use of multimedia and ambience) were studied. Participation during a 12-month study period was on a voluntary basis.

Results

Of the 1,058 questionnaires, 1,014 were eligible for analysis. A pre-anesthesia visit performed by the anesthetist who would deliver anesthesia was the most important aspect for almost two thirds (624 out of 1,014) of the patients with on average more than one third of the money available spent on this item. Waiting time was the second most important factor with about one third of the patients rating this item as the most relevant factor and on average approximately one quarter of the total money available spent on it. Location of the pre-anesthesia visit, use of multimedia and ambience were considered least important. The order of these preferences was regardless of age and gender of subjects. However, there was a trend to age and gender-specific differences concerning the amount of money spent on these five items. For instance, with increasing age, patient-physician relationship and location of the pre-anesthesia visit become more important.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the integration of a pre-anesthesia assessment clinic in anesthetic patient care is not favorable from the patients’ point of view because getting to know the anesthetist who will deliver anesthesia is of paramount importance to most patients. In cases where a pre-anesthetic assessment clinic is indispensable, other measures to build up confidence compensating for the lack of personal patient-physician relationship should be developed. In this respect, the promotion of a corporate identity of the whole anesthesia department may be beneficial. Furthermore, keeping the waiting time as short as possible should be a high priority as this item was rated the second most important factor.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Gerhardinger S (1998) Die emotionale Belastung chirurgischer Patienten. Wirksamkeit psychologischer Operationsvorbereitung. Roderer, Regensburg

  2. Johnston M, Vögele C (1992) Welchen Nutzen hat psychologische Operationsvorbereitung? Eine Metaanalyse der Literatur zur psychologischen Operationsvorbereitung Erwachsener. In: Schmidt L (Hrsg) Jahrbuch der medizinischen Psychologie, Bd 7: Psychologische Aspekte medizinischer Maßnahmen. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio, S 215–246

  3. Krohne HW (1997) Stress und Stressbewältigung. In: Schwarzer R (Hrsg) Gesundheitspsychologie: ein Lehrbuch, 2. überarb. und erw. Aufl. Hogrefe, Göttingen, S 267–284

  4. Witte W (2007) Prämedikation, prä- und postoperative Visite. Bedeutung im Spiegel der Anästhesie-Lehrbücher. Anaesthesist 56(12):1252–1256

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gafni A (1998) Willingness to pay: what’s in the name? Pharmacoeconomics 14(5):465–470

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Donaldson C, Jones AM, Mapp TJ, Olson JA (1998) Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Appl Econ 30(5):667–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Egbert LD, Battit GB, Turnsdorf H, Beecher HK (1965) The value of the preoperative visit by an anaesthesiologist. JAMA 185:87–89

    Google Scholar 

  8. Robertson R, Dixon A, LeGrand J (2008) Patients choice in general practice: the implications of patient satisfaction surveys. J Health Serv Res Policy 13(2):67–72

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kowalski C, Nitzsche A, Scheibler F et al (2009) Breast cancer patients‘ trust in physicians: the impact of patients‘ perception of physicians‘ communication behaviors and hospital organizational climate. Patient Educ Couns 77(3):344–348

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Susleck D, Willocks A, Secrest J et al (2007) The perianesthesia experience from the patient’s perspective. J Perianesth Nurs 22(1):10–20

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kratz CD, Christ M, Geldner G et al (2004) Prämedikationsvisite: Kosten sparen auf Kosten des Patienten? Anaesthesist 53(9):862–870

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Janis IL (1958) Psychological stress – Psychoanalytic and behavioural studies of surgical patients. Academic Press, New York

  13. Pilnick A, Hindmarsh J, Gill VT (2009) Beyond „doctor and patient“: developments in the study of healthcare interactions. Sociol Health Illn 31(6):787–802

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kroehl H (2000) CI 21, Corporate Identity als Erfolgskonzept im 21. Jahrhundert. Vahlen, München

  15. Kindler C, Harms C, Alber C (2002) Das Berufsbild des Anästhesisten. Anaesthesist 51(11):890–896

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harms C, Young RJ, Amsler F et al (2004) Improving anaesthetist’s communication skills. Anaesthesia 58(2):166–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hadjistavropoulos HD, Dobson J, Boisvert JA (2001) Information provision, patient involvement, and emotional support: prospective areas for improving anesthetic care. Can J Anaesth 48:864–870

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Loh A, Härter M (2007) „Shared decision making“ in diverse healthcare systems – Translating research and health policy into practice. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 101:203–204

    Google Scholar 

  19. Williams OA (1993) Patients knowledge of operative care. J R Soc Med 86:328–331

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kalaitzi C, Kalantzis A, Gravas S et al (2006) State anxiety during watchful waiting for urinary lithiasis. Int J Psychiatry Med 36(3):323–331

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Klima S, Hein W, Hube A, Hube R (2005) Multimediale Patientenaufklärung in der Klinik. Chirurg 76(4):398–403

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Teutsch C (2003) Patient-doctor communication. Med Clin North Am 87(5):1115–1145

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Salzwedel C, Marz S, Bauer M, Schuster M (2008) Videoassistierte Patientenaufklärung in der Anästhesiologie: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen eines neuen Verfahrens zur Verbesserung der Patienteninformation. Anaesthesist 57(6):546–554

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stirling L (2006) Reduction and management of perioperative anxiety. Br J Nurs 15(7):359–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Walker JA (2002) Emotional and psychological preoperative preparation in adults. Br J Nurs 11(8):567–575

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cookson R (2003) Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 12:891–894

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Aust.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aust, H., Eberhart, L., Kalmus, G. et al. Wertigkeit von 5 Kernaspekten der Prämedikationsvisite. Anaesthesist 60, 414–420 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-010-1828-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-010-1828-1

Schlüsselwörter

  • Anästhesie
  • Präoperative Behandlung
  • Patientenzufriedenheit
  • Altersfaktoren
  • Geschlecht

Keywords

  • Anesthesia
  • Preoperative care
  • Patient satisfaction
  • Age factors
  • Gender