Conocer la satisfacción de los pacientes sometidos a técnicas de cirugía menor en un centro de salud y describir los procesos atendidos.
DiseñoEstudio retrospectivo sobre población demandante del servicio.
EmplazamientoZona básica de salud.
PacientesLas 160 personas sometidas a cirugía menor en el período de un año.
Mediciones y resultados principalesSe analizan variables descriptivas de todos los intervenidos (edad, sexo, tipo de intervención, diagnóstico prequirúrgico, diagnóstico anatomopatológico y consentimiento informado). Se entrevista telefónicamente a los pacientes en un período de 3 semanas, utilizando una encuesta de satisfacción. Se practicaron 160 intervenciones, remitiéndose el 80% a estudio histológico, con un índice de concordancia del 83,16%. Se entrevista al 65% de los pacientes. Un 15% no disponía de teléfono, no localizándose al 20%. Un 95,56% considera que fueron bien atendidos y el 3,17% mal atendidos. En un 92,06% elegiría de nuevo el centro de salud para procesos de características similares. El 89,9% opina que las explicaciones recibidas fueron bastantes. La higiene de la sala es calificada como mala por un 4,4%.
ConclusionesLa realización de cirugía menor en atención primaria tiene una aceptación favorable entre los usuarios. La actividad realizada en nuestro centro tiene alta concordancia anatomopatológica.
To find the satisfaction of patients undergoing minor surgery at health centres and describe the processes.
DesingRetrospective study of population seeking the service.
SettingHealth district.
Patients160 people who had minor surgery during a year.
Measurements and main resultsDescriptive variables of everyone who had minor surgery were analysed: age, sex, type of intervention, pre-surgical diagnosis, anatomicalpathological diagnosis and informed consent. Over three weeks the patients were interviewed by phone with use of a satisfaction questionnaire. 160 interventions took place, 80% of which were then studied histologically, with an 83.16% concordance index. 65% of patients were interviewed. 15% had no telephone, 20% were not found. 95.56% considered they were well attended and 3.17% badly attended. 92.06% would choose the health centre again for procedures of a similar nature. 89.9% thought that the explanations they had received were sufficient. 4.4% thought that the room’s hygiene was poor.
ConclusionsMinor surgery in primary care was favourably received by users. Activity at our centre had good anatomical-pathological concordance.
