No abstract

Background: The use of a chaperone in the clinical setting is a much debated subject. There have been many guidelines and papers written on this topic, but always from the medical profession's point of view. For the first time, this survey focuses on the opinion of the patient. Methods: 800 consecutive patients attending the urology outpatient clinic were asked to complete a questionnaire on basic patient demographics and their opinions on chaperones. Results: Of 709 patients who completed the questionnaires, 553 (78%) were male. Overall, 535 (75.5%) patients did not want a chaperone present. Only 66 (42%) females stated a preference for the presence of a chaperone. Of the 174 patients requesting a chaperone, 102 (59%) patients wished the role to be taken by a friend or family member. 90% of these patients attended with the appropriate person. Conclusions: Most patients do not want a chaperone present for intimate examinations. Most women do not wish to have a chaperone present. Of those who do wish to have a chaperone present, more than half want a family member or friend to fill the role. This would be against current guidelines. However, in a ''patientcentred'' service, these results should be taken into consideration.

Objectives: To prospectively compare the performance of voided urine cytology (VUC) and the Matritech NMP22 BladderChek ® assay (NMP22) in their ability to detect urothelial transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). Methods: Successive patients presenting to our haematuria clinic were enrolled. All patients underwent ultrasound scan (US), intravenous urography (IVU), flexible cystoscopy and VUC. If bladder TCC was detected, urine was tested using the NMP22 BladderChek ® assay. The study group (group I) comprised 110 patients diagnosed with bladder tumour on flexible cystoscopy. The control group (group II) included 52 patients with a history of haematuria but no demonstrable bladder tumour. The TCC detecting ability of both the NMP22 BladderChek ® assay and VUC were compared. Results: In group I, the NMP22 result was positive in 62.7% (69/110) patients, while a positive VUC result was noted in 52.0% (52/100) patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values for NMP22 vs. VUC were 62.7% vs. 52.0%; 86.5% vs. 95.5%; 90.8% vs. 96.3% and 52.3% vs. 48.0% respectively (not significant). The performance of both urine tests improved with increasing tumour grade (p ≤ 0.05). False positive rate in group II was 13.5% (7/52) for NMP22 and 4.5% (2/42) for VUC.

No abstract

Objective: In urology there is currently no validated and objective way to measure the ‘Relationship with Patients’ aspect of re-validation. The Sheffield Patient Assessment Tool (SHEFFPAT) questionnaire has been validated in a paediatric setting and is recommended by the Picker institute for patient feedback. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility, reliability and validity of the SHEFFPAT questionnaire in urology to determine if it is an appropriate tool to be used for patient feedback. Subjects and methods: Ten consultants in the North West Region gave permission for the SHEFFPAT questionnaire to be distributed to their patients. A minimum of 25 completed questionnaires was required per consultant. A detailed analysis looking at reliability, bias, feasibility and validity was then carried out. Results: In total there were 464 completed questionnaires. The cohort mean score was 4.66 (S.D. 0.19) ranging from 2.0 to 5.0. Twenty-three patients are needed to provide feedback in order to achieve a reliability of 0.7 (95% CI 0.21). The gender and ethnicity of the patient nor their familiarity with the urologist helped to explain the variability in scores ( R = 0.27, R2 0.072, standard error of estimate 0.525). Conclusion: The SHEFFPAT questionnaire appears to provide reliable, valid and unbiased feedback from the patients' perspective fulfilling the White Paper and Health Minister's request for patient involvement in the re-validation process.