ment meeting, which involved the nurse-coordinator, an anesthetist, a house surgeon, and/or a medical resident. They were also given written material at this time, but patients felt that it would have been better if they had been given the written material earlier so they would have had time to read it and come prepared with any questions they had. They found the nurse-coordinator positive, the anesthetist very negative and reminding them of possible side effects. The patients also felt time was wasted with everyone asking them the same questions.
Several patients felt that the equipment given to them was not explained and they did not know how to use it properly (Fielden, Scott and Horne, 2003). They were simply given it at discharge. Others had to borrow or rent needed equipment themselves, which they did not realize they needed until they got home, e.g. raised chairs. Most participants were satisfied with their level of recovery, and were relatively pain free by the time of the second followup interview four to 8 weeks after discharge. Rating the contributions of the various members of the multidisciplinary team, the patients rated the nurses' role as supportive, but not clearly defined. They saw definitive roles for the physiotherapist and occupational therapist in showing them how to do things. Visits at home by the district nurse were welcomed, but again thought of in a supportive category. Telephone contact with nurses was available after discharge but not utilized. The patients generally felt that discharge planning was not individualized and that everyone got the same instructions regardless of special needs.
In hospital visits by physiotherapists were often viewed as insufficient and many patients wished the physiotherapists had spent more time with them helping them to exercise and prepare for discharge (Fielden, Scott and Horne, 2003). Patients were confused by getting different information from different...