Nurse or surgeon-led follow-up after rectal cancer: a randomised trial
2011 (English)In: Colorectal Disease, ISSN 1462-8910, E-ISSN 1463-1318, Vol. 13, no 9, 999-1003 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Follow up programmes consume a large amount of resources with less time for the surgeon to take on new patients. The aim of this randomised study was to compare patient satisfaction, resource utilisation, and medical safety in patients curatively operated for rectal cancer who were followed up by a surgeon or a nurse. Method: The nurse was trained by the colorectal surgeon before the start of the study. Curatively operated patients were asked to give their assent to participation. Randomisation was done by the stomatherapist. After each consultation the patient completed a questionnaire. Results: 110 patients (58 men), age 68 (range 41-87) years, were included between 2002-2005. Only three patients refused participation. Patient satisfaction was high according to VAS: 9.4 for the surgeon and 9.5 for the nurse (n.s.). Consultation time was longer for the nurse: 24 versus 15 minutes (p = 0.001), with more blood samples being taken (29% versus 7%, p = 0.002). Radiological investigations exceeding the routine were made in 11% versus 4% (n.s) of cases. Surgical assistance was needed in 13 out of 182 consultations with the nurse (mean 6 (1-15) min, totally 75 min).. Distant metastases were detected in seven patients in the surgeon and eight in the nurse group, (p = 0.953). Total costs for the follow-up did not differ. Conclusion: Patient satisfaction was equally high for the specialist nurse as for the colorectal surgeon. On only a few occasions was surgical assistance necessary, and total costs for the follow-up showed no difference. Medical security appeared uncompromised. Nurse-led follow-up is encouraged.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 13, no 9, 999-1003 p.
rectal cancer, follow-up, specialist nurse
Surgery Gastroenterology and Hepatology
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-153372DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02317.xISI: 000293999800022PubMedID: 20478003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-153372DiVA: diva2:416590