Search

Background While pain is often the focus of clinical interventions, other clinical outcomes (e.g., discomfort, stiffness) might also contribute to patients’ functionality and well-being. Although researchers and clinicians may view discomfort, pain and stiffness as different constructs, it remains unclear how patients perceive and differentiate between these constructs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore patients’ perceptions of pain, discomfort, and stiffness. Methods Chiropractic patients were invited to complete an online cross-sectional survey and describe what ‘discomfort’, ‘pain’ and ‘stiffness’ meant to them using their own words. Lexical and inductive qualitative content analyses were conducted independently and then triangulated. Results Fifty-three chiropractic patients (47.2% female, mean age: 39.1 ± 15.1 years) responded. The most common combinations of words to describe discomfort were “can be ignored” and “less severe than”. “Cannot be ignored” and “sharp shooting” were used to describe pain. “Limited range of motion” was used to describe stiffness. Qualitatively, five themes were developed: impact, character, feeling, intensity and temporality. Stiffness was described as limited movement/mobility. Although discomfort and stiffness impacted patients’ activities, patients remained functional; pain was described as stopping/limiting activities. Discomfort was described as dull and tingling, pain as sharp and shooting, and stiffness as tight and restricted. Patients felt displeased and annoyed when experiencing discomfort and stiffness but hurt and in danger of harm when experiencing pain. Discomfort and stiffness were described as less intense than pain, with shorter/intermittent duration; however, all constructs could be experienced constantly. Conclusion Patients perceived discomfort, pain and stiffness as different, yet overlapping constructs. This preliminary work advances our knowledge of how patients conceptualize these constructs, contributing to better understanding of what patients mean when reporting these experiences, potentially improving the clinician-patient communication.

Variations in the management of pediatric patients at children's hospitals (CHs) and non-CHs (NCHs) have been well described, especially within the trauma literature. However, little is known about the outcomes and costs of common general surgical procedures at NCHs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CH designation on the outcomes and costs of appendectomy and cholecystectomy.The Kids' Inpatient Database (2003-2012) was queried for patients aged under 18 y who underwent appendectomy or cholecystectomy at CHs and NCHs. Outcomes analyzed included disease severity, complications, laparoscopy, length of stay (LOS), and cost.Most of appendectomies and cholecystectomies were performed at NCHs. Overall, CHs cared for younger children were more likely to be teaching hospitals, had higher costs, and longer LOS. On multivariate analysis for appendectomies, CHs were associated with higher rates of perforated appendicitis (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.42-1.66, P 0.001), less complications (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.61-0.75, P 0.001), increased laparoscopy (OR = 2.93, 95% CI = 2.36-3.64, P 0.001), longer LOS (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.09-1.17, P 0.001), and higher costs (exponentiated log $ = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.13-1.24, P 0.001). Multivariate analysis for cholecystectomies revealed that CHs were associated with less laparoscopy (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.50-0.67, P 0.001), longer LOS (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.19-1.34, P 0.001), and higher costs (exponentiated log $ = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.22-1.37, P 0.001) with similar complications. Independent predictors of LOS and cost included CH designation, negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, complications, younger age, black patients, and public insurance.Variations in surgical management, outcomes, and costs after appendectomy and cholecystectomy exist between CHs and NCHs. CHs excelled in treating complicated appendicitis. NCHs effectively performed cholecystectomies. These differences in outcomes require further investigation to identify modifiable factors to optimize care across all hospitals for these common surgical diseases.

Background Approximately 50% of patients who receive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) experience some kind of adverse event (AE), typically benign and transient in nature. Regardless of their severity, mitigating benign AEs is important to improve patient experience and quality of care. The aim of this study was to identify beliefs, perceptions and practices of chiropractors and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and potential strategies to mitigate them. Methods Clinicians and patients from two chiropractic teaching clinics were invited to respond to an 11-question survey exploring their beliefs, perceptions and practices regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 39 clinicians (67% response rate) and 203 patients (82.9% response rate) completed the survey. Most clinicians (97%) believed benign AEs occur, and 82% reported their own patients have experienced one. For patients, 55% reported experiencing benign AEs post-SMT, with the most common symptoms being pain/soreness, headache and stiffness. While most clinicians (61.5%) reported trying a mitigation strategy with their patients, only 21.2% of patients perceived their clinicians had tried any mitigation strategy. Clinicians perceived that patient education is most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by soft tissue therapy and/or icing after SMT. Patients perceived stretching was most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by education and/or massage. Conclusions This is the first study comparing beliefs, perceptions and practices from clinicians and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. This study provides an important step towards identifying the best strategies to improve patient safety and improve quality of care.

There is a well-established relationship between surgical volume and outcomes after complex pediatric operations. However, this relationship remains unclear for common pediatric procedures. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of hospital volume on outcomes after hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS).The Kid's Inpatient Database (2003-2012) was queried for patients with congenital HPS, who underwent pyloromyotomy. Hospitals were stratified based on case volume. Low-volume hospitals performed the lowest quartile of pyloromyotomies per year and high-volume hospitals managed the highest quartile. Outcomes included complications, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost.Overall, 2137 hospitals performed 51,792 pyloromyotomies. The majority were low-volume hospitals (n = 1806). High-volume hospitals comprised mostly children's hospitals (68%) and teaching hospitals (96.1%). The overall mortality rate was 0.1% and median LOS was 2 d. High-volume hospitals had lower overall complications (1.8% versus 2.5%, P 0.01) and fewer patients with prolonged LOS (17.0% versus 23.5%, P 0.01) but had similar rates of individual complications, similar mortality, and equivalent median LOS as low-volume hospitals. High-volume hospitals also had higher costs by $1132 per patient ($5494 versus $4362, P 0.01). Regional variations in outcomes and costs exist with higher complication rates in the West and lower costs in the South. There was no association between mortality or LOS with hospital volume or region.Patients with pyloric stenosis treated at high-volume hospitals had no clinically significant difference in outcomes despite having higher costs. Although high-volume hospitals offer improved outcomes after complex pediatric surgeries, they may not provide a significant advantage over low-volume hospitals in managing common pediatric procedures, such as pyloromyotomy for congenital HPS.