Computer-generated patient-tailored discharge document 135 Continuous data are presented as mean ± SD or median with IQRs and compared between the two groups with the Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate. Categorical data are presented as frequencies and percentages and compared with chi-square or the Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (SPSS, version 25; IBM, Chicago, Illinois). 3. Results A total of 143 patients were eligible for the participation of whom 31 did not fulfil the study criteria (26 patients did not consent, three patients were excluded due to the need for additional pacemaker implantation or implantable cardiac monitor, and in two patients the procedure was cancelled). As a result, the final study cohort consisted of 112 patients (conventional information, n = 55; patient-tailored information, n = 57) as shown in Figure 4. In 100 patients (89%), patient relatives were present during the discharge session. The patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups (Table 1) and ablation for atrial fibrillation (n = 42, 38%) and atrial flutter (n = 17, 15%) were the most prevalent electrophysiological procedures (Table 2). The mean admission time was 1.9 days (± 0.9). 3.1 Discharge information A total of 90 questionnaires (80% response) assessing the comprehension of discharge information as reviewed by patients were returned. The overall discharge information scored 8.6 (±1.2) for group I (conventional information) and 8.8 (±1.0) for group II (patient-tailored information) on the 10-point Likert scale, with high scores (>8.5) in all subcategories (Table 3). Of the patients who contacted the cardiology department within one week after discharge (n=12, 11%), 9 patients returned the questionnaire. In this particular subgroup, the differences between the conventional and patient-tailored discharge information (8.0 (±0.9) vs 9.2 (±1.2)) showed a greater improvement in comprehension, favouring group II. The most important reasons for contacting the cardiology department included groin/leg complaints, palpitations, dizziness, or concerns about the prescribed medication. Seven of these patients (n=3, group I; 8
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw