53 / 172
e114
Abstracts of the 22
nd
National Congress of Digestive Diseases / Digestive and Liver Disease 48S2 (2016) e67–e231
Satisfaction rate on general practitioner was low both in all patients
and in those at the first visit (48% and 28%). The lowest satisfaction
rate was reported in patients at the first visit (p<0.001), in patients
affected by indeterminate colitis (p=0.003), in patients with long
disease duration (p=0.004); 78% of patients would have liked the use
of explanatory pictures during the visits. Patients already followed-
up in the referral centers reported a good overall satisfaction rate
(87%) which reached 100% in those at the first visit. Nevertheless
in the latter group, on a scale from 1 to 5, “5” (100% satisfied) was
reported by 97% of patients on MI-group (case group) compared
to 54% of controls: p<0.001. No differences in terms “physician’s
communication skills”, “perceived empathy” and duration of visits
(41.9±8.6 vs. 40.2±9.4 minutes) were observed.
Conclusions:
Our study showed as IBD patients followed-up
in referral centers are satisfied of their physician rather than
gastroenterologists without experience on IBD. MI is a communi
cation tool very well appreciated by IBD patients and can help “IBD
experts” to reach the best communication skills especially in pts at
the first visit. Explanatory pictures should be used to help patients
to better understand their clinical condition.
OC.11.8
EFFICACY OF A “CALL CENTER-BASED COMMUNICATION” IN
OPTIMIZING THE CARE OF INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
Imperatore N.*, Rispo A., Testa A., Rea M., Nardone O.M.,
Taranto M.L., Castiglione F.
Gastroenterology “Federico II” University, Naples, Italy
Background and aim:
Telephone helplines have been shown
to be useful in the management of chronic diseases but data in
inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are still scarce.
Aim:
to analyze
our two-years experience with the first IBD-dedicated telephone
helpline in Italy, also evaluating the potential benefits for patients
and physicians.
Material and methods:
Between December 2012 and June 2015
we prospectively collected and analyzed all data deriving from a
dedicated contact center (CC) used at our IBD Unit. The helpline was
managed by operators specialized in health services. After 2 years, an
anonymous questionnaire was administered by telephone operators
to assess the effectiveness of the service and the level of satisfaction
for patients. Also, we compared the number of outpatient visits in
2014 (active CC) with the number of visits in 2012 (without CC)
to directly assess physicians’ benefits. We divided the number of
calls in 5 categories (0-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-30, and > 30), in order to
assess the relationship between the number of calls and the risk of
hospitalization. Statistical analysis was made by using
c
2, ANOVA
and odd ratio (O.R.); differences were considered significant when
p < 0.05.
Results:
During the first 2 years of activity, CC received a total of
11.080 calls with a number of handled requests of 11.972 (mean
20 calls/day). No difference was evident in terms of gender (M/F
45% vs 55%, p=N.S.); young patients called more frequently than
elderly (22% vs 8%; p < 0.01). On average, 63% of patients phoned
monthly to request medical consultation, while 37% called for non-
medical reasons. The monthly peak of calls was on January (18%) and
September (15%), while the daily peak was on Monday (30%) (p <
0.01). Furthermore, 97% of callers reported full satisfaction about our
CC and the number of outpatient visit grow up from 1.658 in 2012
to 1.962 in 2014 (p < 0.01). The risk of hospitalization exponentially
increased with the number of phone calls: 3% for 0 – 5 calls, 7% for
6 – 10 calls (p < 0.01; OR 2.4), 15% for 11 – 20 calls (p < 0.01; OR 5.5),
23% for 21 – 30 calls (p < 0.01; OR 9.7), up to 41% if patients called >
30 times in 2 years (p < 0.01; OR 21.6).
Conclusions:
A dedicated telephone helpline for IBD patients
could provide clinical guidance, care, support and, when necessary,
allow specific additional interventions to supplement the routine
outpatient service.
OC.11.9
IBD-NURSE IN PATIENTS’ HEALTH STATUS ASSESSMENT: DATA
FROM A PILOT STUDY COMPARING ABILITY OF IBD-NURSE AND
GASTROENTEROLOGIST IN USING IBD-CLINICAL SCORES
Mocciaro F.*, Di Mitri R., Pecoraro G.M., Russo G., Costanza V.,
Profita M.A., Sorgente N.
Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, ARNAS Civico-Di Cristina-
Benfratelli Hospital, Palermo, Italy
Background and aim:
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) are
life-long chronic diseases which require a multidisciplinary team
to optimise patients’ care. In this scenario IBD-nurses can play a
strategic role both in the assessment and management of IBD-
patients especially in those affected by severe disease that requires
biologic treatment. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the
role of IBD-nurse in patients’ health status assessment (of those
treated with biologics) by filling-out IBD clinical scores.
Material and methods:
From July to September 2015 all consecutive
IBD-patients treated with biologics were enrolled. For each patient
both gastroenterologists and nurses filled-out separately an IBD
clinical score depending on the type of disease: the Harvey-
Bradshaw Index (HBI) for Crohn’s disease (CD) patients and the
partial MAYO score for ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. All data were
recorded in an electronic database for the final analysis.
Results:
At the end of the study 40 patients were enrolled: 18
male (45%) and 22 female (55%). Twenty-six patients were affected
by Crohn’s disease (65%) and 14 by ulcerative colitis (35%). The
median value of HBI was 4 (range 1-13) in those evaluated by the
gastroenterologist and 6 (0-14) in those evaluated by the IBD-nurse
(p=ns). No differences were recorded through the different items of
the HBI score (median values were reported): 1) patients well-being
(1 vs. 0, p=ns); 2) abdominal pain (0 vs. 0, p=ns); 3) number of liquid
or soft stools in the previous day (3 vs. 3, p=ns); 4) abdominal mass (0
vs. 0, p=ns); 5) complications (0 vs. 0, p=ns). Considering UC patients
the median value of partial MAYO score was 1.5 (0-5) in those
evaluated by the gastroenterologist and 1.5 (0-7) in those evaluated
by the IBD-nurse (p=ns). No differences were recorded through the
different items of the partial MAYO score (median values): 1) stool
frequency per day (1.5 vs. 1, p=ns); 2) rectal bleeding (0 vs. 0, p=ns);
3) global assessment (0 vs. 0, p=ns).
Conclusions:
Our study shows as IBD-nurses are able to determine
correctly the current health status of IBD-patients through
IBD clinical scores use. This can be a solid basis for evaluating
the response to treatment and/or for planning the appropriate
therapeutic interventions, helping gastroenterologist in improving
patients’ care.