| Title |
Patient satisfaction with robotic surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Robotic Surgery, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11701-017-0772-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma Long, Fiona Kew |
| Abstract |
This study is a service evaluation of the robotic-assisted surgery service within the Gynaecology Oncology department at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. The aim is not only to evaluate and improve this new service within the department, but also to add to the available literature that reviews patient satisfaction with robotic-assisted surgery. An anonymous questionnaire was developed with questions taken from the NHS User Experience Survey Question Bank and additional questions in the same format specific to robotic-assisted surgery. This was posted to the first 140 patients to have undergone robotic-assisted surgery within Gynae Oncology at STH. One hundred completed questionnaires were returned. Over 90% of patients were pleased with the care that they received pre-operatively and felt that they have enough input into the decisions made about treatment. Half of patients (51%) reported having pain post-procedure, with a quarter of these patients experiencing severe pain. The majority of patients (72%) felt that their length of stay in hospital was of the right duration. Almost all patients (99%) were pleased with the overall care that they received and 91% would recommend robotic-assisted surgery as a modality. Patients are very satisfied with the care that they receive when undergoing robotic-assisted surgery within Gynae Oncology at our center and the majority of patients would recommend robotic-assisted surgery as a modality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 19% |
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| Panama | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 31% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 24% |
| Engineering | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,536,853
of 24,775,802 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#30
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,519
of 452,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,775,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.