Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment.
ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
ED, emergency department
LOS, length of stay
RPM, remote patient monitoring
SD, standard deviation
Journal
Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes
ISSN: 2542-4548
Titre abrégé: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101728275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
entrez:
28
10
2022
pubmed:
29
10
2022
medline:
29
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine how postsurgical remote patient monitoring (RPM) influences readmissions and emergency visits within 30 days of discharge after operation and to understand patient and surgeon perspectives on postsurgical RPM. This study was conducted at a US tertiary academic medical center between April 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. This mixed-methods evaluation included a randomized controlled trial evaluation of RPM after operation and a qualitative assessment of patients' and surgeons' perceptions of RPM's acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness. A total of 292 patients participated in the RPM trial, and 147 were assigned to the RPM intervention. Despite a good balance between the groups, results indicated no difference in primary or secondary outcomes between the intervention and control groups. The qualitative component included 11 patients and 9 surgeons. The overarching theme for patients was that the program brought them peace of mind. Other main themes included technological issues and perceived benefits of the RPM platform. The major themes for surgeons included identifying the best patients to receive postsurgical RPM, actionable data collection and use, and improvements in data collection needed. Although quantitative results indicate no difference between the groups, postsurgical RPM appears well-accepted from the patient's perspective. However, technological issues could eliminate the benefits. Hospitals seeking to implement similar programs should carefully evaluate which populations to use the program in and seek to collect actionable data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36304524
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2022.09.005
pii: S2542-4548(22)00066-2
pmc: PMC9594118
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
574-583Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2019 May 21;21(5):e13117
pubmed: 31115340
Support Care Cancer. 2020 Oct;28(10):4589-4612
pubmed: 32533435
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Nov;217(5):833-42.e1-3
pubmed: 24055383
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Apr 1;27(4):531-538
pubmed: 32016375
Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Sep;96(3):1057-61
pubmed: 23992697
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 14;375(2):154-61
pubmed: 27410924
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;110:123-134
pubmed: 34293491
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Mar 12;172(5):405-11
pubmed: 22331982
Med Care. 2021 Oct 1;59(10):864-871
pubmed: 34149017
Telemed J E Health. 2018 Jun;24(6):406-414
pubmed: 29111887
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2031640
pubmed: 33372974
HERD. 2021 Jul;14(3):34-48
pubmed: 34075789
JAMA Surg. 2015 Jan;150(1):59-64
pubmed: 25472595
JAMA. 2015 Feb 3;313(5):483-95
pubmed: 25647204
J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):51-7
pubmed: 24365871
Perspect Public Health. 2017 Mar;137(2):89-101
pubmed: 27004489
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Sep;37(12):3054-3061
pubmed: 35132549
Oncologist. 2019 Dec;24(12):e1460-e1466
pubmed: 31227648
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 15;376(24):2358-2366
pubmed: 28614675
J Am Coll Surg. 2016 May;222(5):780-789.e2
pubmed: 27016905
Colorectal Dis. 2015 Oct;17(10):870-5
pubmed: 25851058
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2028328
pubmed: 33346847
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Feb 19;17(2):e45
pubmed: 25700481
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017 Oct;22(4):869-888
pubmed: 27696102
Br J Surg. 2021 Nov 11;108(11):1304-1314
pubmed: 34661649
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
Ann Surg. 2019 Apr;269(4):652-662
pubmed: 29489489
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Jun;14(6):e335-e345
pubmed: 29894662