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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spaulding, Aaron, Loomis, Erica, Brennan, Emily, Klein, Diane, Pierson, Karlyn, Willford, Rochelle, Hallbeck, M. Susan, Reisenauer, Janani
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