RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Patient satisfaction and perception of indwelling pleural catheters
JF European Respiratory Journal
JO Eur Respir J
FD European Respiratory Society
SP PA4648
DO 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.PA4648
VO 54
IS suppl 63
A1 Sarah Jane Messeder
A1 Megan Thomson
A1 Graeme Currie
A1 Mahendran Chetty
YR 2019
UL http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/suppl_63/PA4648.abstract
AB Background: Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) are increasingly used to enable ambulatory pleural fluid drainage in patients with symptomatic malignant effusion. Our aim was to determine patient satisfaction and perception post IPC insertion.Method: All patients receiving an IPC between June 2018 and February 2019 were included. A questionnaire survey was conducted 6 weeks after the procedure. Demographics, information received prior to IPC insertion, details about IPC drainage and pain scale including impact upon quality of life were collected. The data was then analysed and interpreted.Results: A total of 21 questionnaires were returned. The average age was 72 years (range 58-91). On average, patients felt they received the right amount of information prior to IPC insertion and rated the procedure 3 out of 10 for severity of pain. Most patients had their IPC drained once a week by a nurse or other healthcare professional and found it a 0 out of 10 for pain. In total, 48% of individuals stated they had problems with the IPC, including allergy to the dressing site (n=3, 14%), pain after insertion (n=2, 10%) and inability to lie on the side of the IPC (n=2, 10%). However only 19% (n=4) felt their IPC prevented day to day activities; inability to bathe, swim or wear a bra. In total, 71% of patients (n=15) felt it improved their quality of life as they felt less breathless (n=9, 43%) and had fewer hospital attendances (n=2, 10%). Overall, 86% (n=18) of individuals were satisfied with their IPC.Discussion: IPCs are successfully used in patients with malignant pleural effusions with good patient satisfaction. Therefore, consideration needs to be given as to whether an IPC should be offered as a primary intervention.FootnotesCite this article as: European Respiratory Journal 2019; 54: Suppl. 63, PA4648.This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).