title: Patient priorities with traumatic lacerations.
abstract: Clinical trials should use outcomes that are important to patients. We sought to determine the aspects of laceration management that are most important to patients. A prospective observational survey was conducted at one suburban and one urban university ED during November to December 1998 that included ED patients and visitors with and without current or prior lacerations. Trained research assistants approached 747 people of which 724 (97%) completed a 25-item closed question survey that evaluated demographics, prior laceration repairs, and assessed the relative importance of least painful repair, ED length of stay, cosmetic outcome, functional recovery, practitioner compassion, avoidance of wound infection, total costs, and missed days of work or school using a five-item Likert scale (not important-extremely important). Additionally, the relative importance of these items was compared. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seven hundred twenty-four people participated; 383 (53%) had prior lacerations; 92 (14%) had lacerations at the time of the survey. The most important aspect of care for respondents were normal function (28%), avoiding infection (20%), cosmetic outcome (17%), and least painful repair (17%). Based on Likert scale data, most important aspects of care were: avoiding wound infection (mean [95% CI], 4.58 [4.52 to 4.64]), normal function (4.54 [4.48 to 4.6]), cosmetic outcome (3.78 [3.68 to 3.88]), and least painful repair (3.84 [3.76 to 3.92]). Cost, length of stay, missed work/school, and compassion were less important (range, 3.0 to 3.7). Patients with facial lacerations chose cosmetic outcome as the most important aspect of care while all others chose function. Patients prioritize the medical outcomes of laceration repair (function, avoiding infection, cosmesis, pain) more than cost, compassion, ED length of stay and inconvenience (missed work/school). Cosmetic outcome is particularly important to patients with facial lacerations. This information should be useful when designing outcome studies of laceration management.
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA. asinger@epo.som.sunysb.edu
authors.forename: A J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Singer
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Mach
authors.forename: H C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Thode
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hemachandra
authors.forename: F S
authors.initials: FS
authors.lastname: Shofer
authors.forename: J E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Hollander
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002921:Cicatrix / Q000523:psychology; D004632:Emergency Medical Services; D005151:Facial Injuries / Q000628:therapy; D005260:Female; D006785:Hospitals, University; D006801:Humans; D022125:Lacerations / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy*; D008297:Male; D009518:New York; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D015143:Philadelphia; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000523:psychology; D013383:Suburban Population; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014505:Urban Population; D014946:Wound Infection / Q000517:prevention & control