Is LEEP a feasible addition to the family physician's office?

Family practice research journal Pub Date : 1994-03-01
G M Eilers, T Swanson, J Kitowski, M Smith
{"title":"Is LEEP a feasible addition to the family physician's office?","authors":"G M Eilers,&nbsp;T Swanson,&nbsp;J Kitowski,&nbsp;M Smith","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Seven thousand women die annually from cervical cancer in the US. This disease is preventable if cervical dysplasia is treated. Loop Electrosurgical Excision of the Cervix (LEEP) is a new treatment for dysplasia. This study evaluates the acceptability and feasibility of having LEEP available in a family physician's office.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We performed a retrospective audit of colposcopy patients at 2 family practice clinics over a 2-year period. We determined the patients who met criteria for LEEP, surveyed the patients and calculated the cost benefit to the clinic.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Out of 288 patients undergoing colposcopy, 40 (14%) were candidates for LEEP. Few complications, minimal discomfort, and performance of the procedure at their primary clinic were important to patients. Patient cost for LEEP in the office is $700 compared to $1450 in the hospital. Nine LEEP procedures per year provides a break-even point for the clinic.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LEEP offers the advantage over laser treatment of lower cost, use of local anesthesia, and provision of a pathology specimen. Performing LEEP in the family physician's office is cost effective and meets patient needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":77127,"journal":{"name":"Family practice research journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"87-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Seven thousand women die annually from cervical cancer in the US. This disease is preventable if cervical dysplasia is treated. Loop Electrosurgical Excision of the Cervix (LEEP) is a new treatment for dysplasia. This study evaluates the acceptability and feasibility of having LEEP available in a family physician's office.

Method: We performed a retrospective audit of colposcopy patients at 2 family practice clinics over a 2-year period. We determined the patients who met criteria for LEEP, surveyed the patients and calculated the cost benefit to the clinic.

Result: Out of 288 patients undergoing colposcopy, 40 (14%) were candidates for LEEP. Few complications, minimal discomfort, and performance of the procedure at their primary clinic were important to patients. Patient cost for LEEP in the office is $700 compared to $1450 in the hospital. Nine LEEP procedures per year provides a break-even point for the clinic.

Conclusion: LEEP offers the advantage over laser treatment of lower cost, use of local anesthesia, and provision of a pathology specimen. Performing LEEP in the family physician's office is cost effective and meets patient needs.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
LEEP是家庭医生办公室可行的补充吗?
背景:美国每年有7000名妇女死于宫颈癌。如果治疗宫颈发育不良,这种疾病是可以预防的。宫颈环电切术(LEEP)是治疗宫颈发育不良的一种新方法。本研究评估在家庭医生办公室使用LEEP的可接受性和可行性。方法:我们对2家家庭诊所2年来的阴道镜患者进行回顾性审计。我们确定了符合LEEP标准的患者,对患者进行了调查并计算了诊所的成本效益。结果:288例阴道镜患者中,40例(14%)适合LEEP。很少的并发症,最小的不适,在他们的主要诊所的程序性能是重要的。患者在办公室接受LEEP治疗的费用为700美元,而在医院接受LEEP治疗的费用为1450美元。每年9次LEEP手术为诊所提供了一个收支平衡点。结论:与激光治疗相比,LEEP具有成本低、局部麻醉、提供病理标本等优点。在家庭医生办公室执行LEEP是成本效益高,满足病人的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Principles of survey research. Desirable features of qualitative research. Consideration of venue and vehicle in health behavior research with adolescents. Reliability of survey about immunization barriers in Minnesota. Should primary care physicians take care of diabetes?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1