IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i5p3773-d1075048.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients’ Perceptions of Experiences of Postoperative Chest Drain Tube Insertion: A Pilot Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Agnieszka Kruk

    (Department of Surgical Nursing, Medical University of Gdansk, Dębinki 7, 80-211 Gdansk, Poland
    Thoracic Surgery Department, Medical University of Gdansk, Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-211 Gdansk, Poland)

  • Robert Dziedzic

    (Thoracic Surgery Department, Medical University of Gdansk, Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-211 Gdansk, Poland)

  • Sylwia Terech-Skóra

    (Department of Surgical Nursing, Medical University of Gdansk, Dębinki 7, 80-211 Gdansk, Poland)

  • Renata Piotrkowska

    (Department of Surgical Nursing, Medical University of Gdansk, Dębinki 7, 80-211 Gdansk, Poland)

  • Wioletta Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska

    (Department of Anaesthesiology Nursing and Intensive Care, Medical University of Gdansk, Dębinki 7, 80-211 Gdansk, Poland)

Abstract

Background: Pleural drainage is a routine procedure conducted after thoracotomy and thoracoscopy. It is used to remove air or excess fluid from a pleural cavity and enables proper lung expansion. Essential elements of care provided during hospitalization and treatment include meeting patients’ growing expectations and continually improving quality while optimizing safety. Aim: This study aimed to explore patients’ experiences with pleural drainage after thoracic surgery and their correlation with socio-demographic data. Methods: A pilot survey with an exploratory design was conducted at a large teaching hospital in Poland, in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at the University Clinical Centre in Gdansk. The study involved the analysis of 100 randomly selected subjects with a chest tube drain. A self-designed questionnaire was used to collect social, demographic, and clinical data. Twenty-three questions related to experiences with pleural drainage, ailments, limitations in daily functioning, and security with a chest tube were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Patients completed the questionnaire on the third postoperative day. Results: Individuals fitted with a traditional water-seal drainage system felt safer than those from the digital drainage group ( p = 0.017). Statistically significant differences were found in the assessment of nursing assistance ( p = 0.025); the number of satisfied patients was greater in a group of unemployed people. No correlation was found between demographic and social factors and the patients’ sense of security (gender: p = 0.348, age: p = 0.172, education level: p = 0.154, professional activity: p = 0.665). Conclusions: Demographic and social characteristics did not significantly affect patients’ sense of safety with chest drainage types. Patients with traditional drainage felt significantly safer than patients with digital drainage. Patient knowledge of pleural drainage management was not satisfactory, with a number of patients indicating a lack of knowledge in this area. This is important information that should be considered when planning measures to improve the quality of care.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnieszka Kruk & Robert Dziedzic & Sylwia Terech-Skóra & Renata Piotrkowska & Wioletta Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska, 2023. "Patients’ Perceptions of Experiences of Postoperative Chest Drain Tube Insertion: A Pilot Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-11, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:3773-:d:1075048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/3773/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/3773/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:3773-:d:1075048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.