240
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Gynaecology

Increasing the adoption of ambulatory hysteroscopy in Australia – cost comparisons and patient satisfaction

, , &
 

Abstract

We present the findings of a prospective cohort study in a single tertiary hospital to review the patient experience and economic benefit of ambulatory hysteroscopy (AH). Data were collected between May 2017 and February 2020. Patient satisfaction was measured with qualitative survey. Hospital level financial data were obtained over two financial years (2017/18 and 2018/19) to identify seasonal variation. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction and the secondary outcome was cost of AH compared to hysteroscopy under GA. Three hundred and twenty-nine patients underwent AH. Two hundred and ninety-eight responses (91%) were collected. Ninety-five percent of procedures were successful. Median pain score was five out of 10. Despite pain, 94% of patients would undergo AH again and 97% would recommend it. The average hospital cost for AH was $259 compared with $3098 for hysteroscopy under GA. These findings support AH as a safe, well-tolerated and economically viable alternative to hysteroscopy under GA.

    Impact Statement

  • What is already known on this subject? Hysteroscopy is traditionally performed in an operating theatre under general anaesthesia (GA). Technological advancements allow for the procedure to be performed in an outpatient setting. Despite advantages of ambulatory hysteroscopy (AH), GA hysteroscopy is still the predominant intervention in Australia.

  • What the results of this study add? Patient satisfaction in AH was assessed. The median pain score was five out of 10. Despite pain, 94% of patients would undergo AH again and 97% would recommend it.

  • What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? AH is a well-tolerated alternative to hysteroscopy under GA with significant cost benefits to the hospital and high patient satisfaction. Further research should focus on direct comparison of the two procedure approaches using randomised controlled trials.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.