Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-f6s65 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-26T06:11:47.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of non-response in quality control of nasal septal surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

R Haye ,
M T Egeland ,
L K Døsen ,
C Gay ,
M TarAngen  and
O Shiryaeva
R Haye*
Affiliation:
Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
M T Egeland
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
L K Døsen
Affiliation:
Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
C Gay
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
M TarAngen
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
O Shiryaeva
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Rolf Haye, Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Lovisenberggata 17, 0456 Oslo, Norway E-mail: rolf.haye@medisin.uio.no Fax: +00 47 2322 5646
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study evaluated the effect of mail non-response on the validity of the results of nasal septal surgery.

Method

Six months post-operatively, questionnaires with both prospective and retrospective ratings were mailed to patients. Patients who did not respond (non-responders) were contacted by telephone. This study compared two cohorts of patients using different interviewers (a nurse and a surgeon). Cohort one consisted of 182 patients (with 67 per cent mail response), and cohort two consisted of 454 patients (with 64.8 per cent mail response).

Results

In both cohorts, the improvement in obstruction scores was significantly better among mail responders than among non-responders (telephone interviewees) using prospective ratings, but worse using retrospective ratings.

Conclusion

Mail responders had better improvement in nasal obstruction after septoplasty than non-responders. Therefore, low response rates may cause an overestimation of the results. The retrospective ratings obtained through telephone interviews are less reliable because they are influenced by memory and the patients’ tendency to give socially acceptable answers.

Keywords

Nasal Surgical ProceduresPatient Outcome AssessmentVisual Analog ScaleTelephoneInterview

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 208 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Dr R Haye takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Rhee, JS, Sullivan, CD, Frank, DO, Kimbell, JS, Garcia, GJ. A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014;16:219–25Google Scholar
2Egeland, MT, Tarangen, M, Gay, C, Døsen, LK, Haye, R. Evaluation of non-response in quality control of nasal septal surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:1130–6Google Scholar
3Haye, R, Tarangen, M, Shiryaeva, O, Døsen, LK. Evaluation of the nasal surgical questionnaire for monitoring results of septoplasty. Int J Otolaryngol 2015;2015:563639Google Scholar
4Bowling, A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005;27:281–91Google Scholar
5Haye, R, Døsen, LK, Tarangen, M, Shiryaeva, O. Good correlation between visual analogue scale and numerical rating scale in the assessment of nasal obstruction. J Laryngol Otol 2018;132:327–8Google Scholar
6Bijur, PE, Latimer, CT, Gallagher, EJ. Validation of a verbally administered rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:390–2Google Scholar
7Hjermstad, MJ, Fayers, PM, Haugen, DF, Caraceni, A, Hanks, GW, Loge, JH et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;41:1073–93Google Scholar
8Stewart, MG, Smith, TL, Weaver, EM, Witsell, DL, Yueh, B, Hannley, MT et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from nasal obstruction septoplasty effectiveness (NOSE) Study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:283–90Google Scholar
9Hong, SD, Lee, NJ, Cho, HJ, Jang, MS, Jung, TY, Kim, HY et al. Predictive factors of subjective outcomes after septoplasty with and without turbinoplasty: can individual perceptual differences of the air passage be a main factor? Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2015;5:616–21Google Scholar
10Gillman, GS, Egloff, AM, Rivera-Serrano, CM. Revision septoplasty: a prospective disease-specific outcome study. Laryngoscope 2014;124:1290–5Google Scholar
11Hsu, HC, Tan, CD, Chang, CW, Chu, CW, Chiu, YC, Pan, CJ et al. Evaluation of nasal patency by visual analogue scale/nasal obstruction symptom evaluation questionnaires and anterior active rhinomanometry after septoplasty: a retrospective one-year follow-up cohort study. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42:53–9Google Scholar
12Toyserkani, NM, Frish, T. Are too may septal deviations operated on? A retrospective patient's satisfaction questionnaire with 11 years follow up. Rhinology 2012;50:185–90Google Scholar
13Croy, I, Hummel, T, Pade, A, Pade, J. Quality of life following nasal surgery. Laryngoscope 2010;120:826–31Google Scholar
14Bulut, OC, Wallner, F, Plinkert, PK, Prochnow, S, Kuhnt, C, Baumann, I. Quality of life after septoplasty measured with the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology 2015;53:54–8Google Scholar
15Dinis, PB, Haider, H. Septoplasty: long-term evaluation of results. Am J Otolaryngol 2002;23:85–90Google Scholar
16Siegel, NS, Glicklich, RE, Tagnizadeh, F, Chang, Y. Outcomes of septoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:228–32Google Scholar
17Gandomi, B, Bayat, A, Kazemei, T. Outcomes of septoplasty in young adults: the nasal obstruction septoplasty effectiveness study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;31:189–92Google Scholar
18Hing, CB, Smith, TO, Hooper, L, Song, F, Donell, ST. A review of how to conduct a surgical survey using a questionnaire. Knee 2011;18:209–13Google Scholar