Cargando…
Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment
OBJECTIVE: 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted at a US tertiary ac...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9594118/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36304524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2022.09.005 |
_version_ | 1784815334812811264 |
---|---|
author | Spaulding, Aaron Loomis, Erica Brennan, Emily Klein, Diane Pierson, Karlyn Willford, Rochelle Hallbeck, M. Susan Reisenauer, Janani |
author_facet | Spaulding, Aaron Loomis, Erica Brennan, Emily Klein, Diane Pierson, Karlyn Willford, Rochelle Hallbeck, M. Susan Reisenauer, Janani |
author_sort | Spaulding, Aaron |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9594118 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95941182022-10-26 Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment Spaulding, Aaron Loomis, Erica Brennan, Emily Klein, Diane Pierson, Karlyn Willford, Rochelle Hallbeck, M. Susan Reisenauer, Janani Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Original Article OBJECTIVE: 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Elsevier 2022-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9594118/ /pubmed/36304524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2022.09.005 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Spaulding, Aaron Loomis, Erica Brennan, Emily Klein, Diane Pierson, Karlyn Willford, Rochelle Hallbeck, M. Susan Reisenauer, Janani Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment |
title | Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment |
title_full | Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment |
title_fullStr | Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment |
title_full_unstemmed | Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment |
title_short | Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment |
title_sort | postsurgical remote patient monitoring outcomes and perceptions: a mixed-methods assessment |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9594118/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36304524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2022.09.005 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT spauldingaaron postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment AT loomiserica postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment AT brennanemily postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment AT kleindiane postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment AT piersonkarlyn postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment AT willfordrochelle postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment AT hallbeckmsusan postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment AT reisenauerjanani postsurgicalremotepatientmonitoringoutcomesandperceptionsamixedmethodsassessment |