Sedation shared decision-making in ambulatory venous access device placement

Effects on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time

Melissa D. Chittle, Rahmi Oklu, Richard M. Pino, Ping He, Robert M. Sheridan, Joanne Martino, Joshua A. Hirsch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine the impact of shared decision-making when selecting a sedation option, from no sedation (local anesthetic), minimal sedation (anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine) or moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate), for venous access device placement (port-a-cath and tunneled catheters) on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. This is an IRB-approved, HIPPA-compliant, retrospective study of 198 patients (18-85 years old, 60% female) presenting to an ambulatory vascular interventional radiology department for venous access device placement between 22 October 2014 and 7 October 2015. Patients were educated about sedation options and given the choice of undergoing the procedure with no sedation (local anesthetic only), or minimal or moderate sedation. Satisfaction was assessed through three survey questions. No sedation was selected by 53/198 (27%), minimal sedation by 71/198 (36%) and moderate sedation by 74/198 (37%). All subjects would recommend the option to another patient and valued the opportunity to select a sedation option. Post-procedure recovery time differences were statistically significant (p<0.0001) with median recovery times of 0 minutes for no sedation, 38 minutes for minimal sedation and 64 minutes for moderate sedation. In conclusion, patient sedation preference for venous access device placement is variable, signifying there is a role for shared decision-making as it empowers the patient to select the option most aligned with his or her goals. The procedure is well-tolerated, associated with high satisfaction, and the impact on departmental flow is notable because patients choosing no or minimal sedation results in a decreased post-procedure recovery time burden.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)355-360
Number of pages6
JournalVascular Medicine (United Kingdom)
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Conscious Sedation
Patient Satisfaction
Decision Making
Equipment and Supplies
Local Anesthetics
Benzodiazepines
Opiate Alkaloids
Interventional Radiology
Patient Preference
Research Ethics Committees
Blood Vessels
Catheters
Retrospective Studies

Keywords

  • ambulatory vascular procedures
  • patient centered care
  • sedation
  • shared decision-making
  • venous access device

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Sedation shared decision-making in ambulatory venous access device placement : Effects on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. / Chittle, Melissa D.; Oklu, Rahmi; Pino, Richard M.; He, Ping; Sheridan, Robert M.; Martino, Joanne; Hirsch, Joshua A.

In: Vascular Medicine (United Kingdom), Vol. 21, No. 4, 01.08.2016, p. 355-360.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chittle, Melissa D. ; Oklu, Rahmi ; Pino, Richard M. ; He, Ping ; Sheridan, Robert M. ; Martino, Joanne ; Hirsch, Joshua A. / Sedation shared decision-making in ambulatory venous access device placement : Effects on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. In: Vascular Medicine (United Kingdom). 2016 ; Vol. 21, No. 4. pp. 355-360.
@article{e6345aaf09204cedaa9dc0733dad2aac,
title = "Sedation shared decision-making in ambulatory venous access device placement: Effects on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time",
abstract = "This study was undertaken to determine the impact of shared decision-making when selecting a sedation option, from no sedation (local anesthetic), minimal sedation (anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine) or moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate), for venous access device placement (port-a-cath and tunneled catheters) on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. This is an IRB-approved, HIPPA-compliant, retrospective study of 198 patients (18-85 years old, 60{\%} female) presenting to an ambulatory vascular interventional radiology department for venous access device placement between 22 October 2014 and 7 October 2015. Patients were educated about sedation options and given the choice of undergoing the procedure with no sedation (local anesthetic only), or minimal or moderate sedation. Satisfaction was assessed through three survey questions. No sedation was selected by 53/198 (27{\%}), minimal sedation by 71/198 (36{\%}) and moderate sedation by 74/198 (37{\%}). All subjects would recommend the option to another patient and valued the opportunity to select a sedation option. Post-procedure recovery time differences were statistically significant (p<0.0001) with median recovery times of 0 minutes for no sedation, 38 minutes for minimal sedation and 64 minutes for moderate sedation. In conclusion, patient sedation preference for venous access device placement is variable, signifying there is a role for shared decision-making as it empowers the patient to select the option most aligned with his or her goals. The procedure is well-tolerated, associated with high satisfaction, and the impact on departmental flow is notable because patients choosing no or minimal sedation results in a decreased post-procedure recovery time burden.",
keywords = "ambulatory vascular procedures, patient centered care, sedation, shared decision-making, venous access device",
author = "Chittle, {Melissa D.} and Rahmi Oklu and Pino, {Richard M.} and Ping He and Sheridan, {Robert M.} and Joanne Martino and Hirsch, {Joshua A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1358863X16643602",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "355--360",
journal = "Vascular Medicine (United Kingdom)",
issn = "1358-863X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sedation shared decision-making in ambulatory venous access device placement

T2 - Effects on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time

AU - Chittle, Melissa D.

AU - Oklu, Rahmi

AU - Pino, Richard M.

AU - He, Ping

AU - Sheridan, Robert M.

AU - Martino, Joanne

AU - Hirsch, Joshua A.

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - This study was undertaken to determine the impact of shared decision-making when selecting a sedation option, from no sedation (local anesthetic), minimal sedation (anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine) or moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate), for venous access device placement (port-a-cath and tunneled catheters) on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. This is an IRB-approved, HIPPA-compliant, retrospective study of 198 patients (18-85 years old, 60% female) presenting to an ambulatory vascular interventional radiology department for venous access device placement between 22 October 2014 and 7 October 2015. Patients were educated about sedation options and given the choice of undergoing the procedure with no sedation (local anesthetic only), or minimal or moderate sedation. Satisfaction was assessed through three survey questions. No sedation was selected by 53/198 (27%), minimal sedation by 71/198 (36%) and moderate sedation by 74/198 (37%). All subjects would recommend the option to another patient and valued the opportunity to select a sedation option. Post-procedure recovery time differences were statistically significant (p<0.0001) with median recovery times of 0 minutes for no sedation, 38 minutes for minimal sedation and 64 minutes for moderate sedation. In conclusion, patient sedation preference for venous access device placement is variable, signifying there is a role for shared decision-making as it empowers the patient to select the option most aligned with his or her goals. The procedure is well-tolerated, associated with high satisfaction, and the impact on departmental flow is notable because patients choosing no or minimal sedation results in a decreased post-procedure recovery time burden.

AB - This study was undertaken to determine the impact of shared decision-making when selecting a sedation option, from no sedation (local anesthetic), minimal sedation (anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine) or moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate), for venous access device placement (port-a-cath and tunneled catheters) on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. This is an IRB-approved, HIPPA-compliant, retrospective study of 198 patients (18-85 years old, 60% female) presenting to an ambulatory vascular interventional radiology department for venous access device placement between 22 October 2014 and 7 October 2015. Patients were educated about sedation options and given the choice of undergoing the procedure with no sedation (local anesthetic only), or minimal or moderate sedation. Satisfaction was assessed through three survey questions. No sedation was selected by 53/198 (27%), minimal sedation by 71/198 (36%) and moderate sedation by 74/198 (37%). All subjects would recommend the option to another patient and valued the opportunity to select a sedation option. Post-procedure recovery time differences were statistically significant (p<0.0001) with median recovery times of 0 minutes for no sedation, 38 minutes for minimal sedation and 64 minutes for moderate sedation. In conclusion, patient sedation preference for venous access device placement is variable, signifying there is a role for shared decision-making as it empowers the patient to select the option most aligned with his or her goals. The procedure is well-tolerated, associated with high satisfaction, and the impact on departmental flow is notable because patients choosing no or minimal sedation results in a decreased post-procedure recovery time burden.

KW - ambulatory vascular procedures

KW - patient centered care

KW - sedation

KW - shared decision-making

KW - venous access device

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979530512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979530512&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1358863X16643602

DO - 10.1177/1358863X16643602

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 355

EP - 360

JO - Vascular Medicine (United Kingdom)

JF - Vascular Medicine (United Kingdom)

SN - 1358-863X

IS - 4

ER -