Background: All physicians seek to improve the patient experience. In an awake surgical procedure, the patient has a unique opportunity to comment on all aspects of care. The provision of a positive experience is part of quality health care. Our purpose was to define this experience to determine areas for improvement. Methods: We evaluated 125 patients who underwent stereotactic radiosurgery using a frame-based, gamma knife technique. Patients were surveyed by a nurse practitioner across all elements of their procedural experience prior to same-day discharge. Results: The radiosurgery was completed in all patients with same-day discharge. In an initial 100-patient cohort, 89 patients said they had received adequate oral and/or intravenous sedation before the procedure. All 100 patients said that they felt comfortable before stereotactic frame application, and all patients later remembered frame application. These patients described frame application as very or adequately comfortable (n = 73), minimally uncomfortable (n = 18), or very uncomfortable (n = 9). Neuroimaging was described as very or adequately comfortable (n = 93), minimally uncomfortable (n = 3), or very uncomfortable (n = 4). Radiosurgery in the gamma knife unit was found to be very or adequately comfortable (n = 99) or very uncomfortable (n = 1). We evaluated how 8 separate factors may have contributed to survey responses related to procedural comfort. These factors included intravenous line placement, delivery of sedation medications, application of the head frame, having the MRI, having radiosurgery on the gamma knife bed, removal of the stereotactic frame, communication with caregivers, and knowing what to expect beforehand. We asked the patients to rate their nursing care during the radiosurgery experience, and ‘excellent' was chosen by all initial 100 patients. Other elements of the procedure were also studied as well as suggestions for improvement. As a secondary objective, we then modified our protocol to include sodium bicarbonate added to the local anesthetic for frame application and evaluated an additional cohort of 25 patients. Conclusions: Utilizing a system of physician and nursing education, together with pharmacological sedation and efficient procedural steps, patients said that intravenous line placement (91%), stereotactic frame application (74%), MRI (93%), receiving radiosurgery in the unit (99%), frame removal (84%), communication with caregivers (100%), and knowing what to expect beforehand (97%) were either very or adequately comfortable. Specific evaluations of care processes can lead to care improvement.

Keywords:
Patient experience, Stereotactic radiosurgery, Quality
1.
Clifford W, Sharpe H, Khu KJ, Cusimano M, Knifed E, Bernstein M: Gamma knife patients' experience: lessons learned from a qualitative study. J Neurooncol 2009;92:387-392.
2.
Dekkers OM, Biermasz NR, Smit JW, Groot LE, Roelfsema F, Romijn JA, et al: Quality of life in treated adult craniopharyngioma patients. Eur J Endocrinol 2006;154:483-489.
3.
Frič R, Eide PK: The presigmoid approach for removal of tumours causing ventral compression of the brainstem. Surgical results and postoperative quality of life. Br J Neurosurg 2011;25:86-93.
4.
Karabatsou K, O'Kelly C, Ganna A, Dehdashti AR, Gentili F: Outcomes and quality of life assessment in patients undergoing endoscopic surgery for pituitary adenomas. Br J Neurosurg 2008;22:630-635.
5.
Bosma I, Reijneveld JC, Douw L, Vos MJ, Postma TJ, Aaronson NK, et al: Health-related quality of life of long-term high-grade glioma survivors. Neuro Oncol 2009;11:51-58.
6.
Gazzotti MR, Malheiros SM, Batan Alith M, Nascimento O, Santoro IL, Jardim JR, et al: Quality of life and physical limitations in primary brain tumor patients. Qual Life Res 2011;20:1639-1643.
7.
Lamperti E, Pantaleo G, Finocchiaro CY, Silvani A, Botturi A, Gaviani P, et al: Recurrent brain tumour: the impact of illness on patient's life. Support Care Cancer 2012;20:1327-1332.
8.
Mehta MP, Tsao MN, Whelan TJ, Morris DE, Hayman JA, Flickinger JC, et al: The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based review of the role of radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:37-46.
9.
Roos D: What is the randomised evidence for surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with solitary (or few) brain metastases? Int J Evid Based Healthc 2011;9:61-66.
10.
Treur H, Hunsche S, Hoevels M, Luyken K, Maarouf M, Voges J, et al: The influence of head frame distortions on stereotactic localization and targeting. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:3877-3887.
11.
Godil SS, Parker SL, Suckerman SL, Mendenall SK, Devin CJ, Asher AL, et al: Determining the quality and effectiveness of surgical spine care: patient satisfaction is not a valid proxy. Spine J 2013;13:1006-1012.
12.
Timmer FC, van Haren AE, Mulder JJ, Hanssens PE, van Overbeeke JJ, Cremers CW, et al: Quality of life after gamma knife radiosurgery treatment in patients with a vestibular schwannoma: the patient's perspective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:867-873.
13.
Myrseth E, Moller P, Pedersen PH, Lund-Johansen M: Vestibular schwannoma: surgery or gamma knife radiosurgery? A prospective, nonrandomized study. Neurosurgery 2009;64:654-661.
14.
SF36.org: A community for measuring health outcomes using SF tools. http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf36.shtml (accessed April 21, 2014).
15.
Gauden A, Weir P, Hawthorne G, Kaye A: Systematic review of quality of life in the management of vestibular schwannoma. J Clin Neurosci 2011;18:1573-1584.
16.
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Adogwa O, Anderson WN, Devin CJ, et al: Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:471-478.
17.
Masino C, Lam TC: Choice of rating scale labels: implication for minimizing patient satisfaction response ceiling effect in telemedicine surveys. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20:1150-1155.
18.
Lord L, Gale N: Subjective experience or objective process: understanding the gap between values and practice for involving patients in designing patient-centered care. J Health Organ Manag 2014;28:714-730.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.