Postoperative Remote Automated Monitoring and Virtual Hospital-to-Home Care System Following Cardiac and Major Vascular Surgery: User Testing Study

Background Cardiac and major vascular surgeries are common surgical procedures associated with high rates of postsurgical complications and related hospital readmission. In-hospital remote automated monitoring (RAM) and virtual hospital-to-home patient care systems have major potential to improve patient outcomes following cardiac and major vascular surgery. However, the science of deploying and evaluating these systems is complex and subject to risk of implementation failure. Objective As a precursor to a randomized controlled trial (RCT), this user testing study aimed to examine user performance and acceptance of a RAM and virtual hospital-to-home care intervention, using Philip’s Guardian and Electronic Transition to Ambulatory Care (eTrAC) technologies, respectively. Methods Nurses and patients participated in systems training and individual case-based user testing at two participating sites in Canada and the United Kingdom. Participants were video recorded and asked to think aloud while completing required user tasks and while being rated on user performance. Feedback was also solicited about the user experience, including user satisfaction and acceptance, through use of the Net Promoter Scale (NPS) survey and debrief interviews. Results A total of 37 participants (26 nurses and 11 patients) completed user testing. The majority of nurse and patient participants were able to complete most required tasks independently, demonstrating comprehension and retention of required Guardian and eTrAC system workflows. Tasks which required additional prompting by the facilitator, for some, were related to the use of system features that enable continuous transmission of patient vital signs (eg, pairing wireless sensors to the patient) and assigning remote patient monitoring protocols. NPS scores by user group (nurses using Guardian: mean 8.8, SD 0.89; nurses using eTrAC: mean 7.7, SD 1.4; patients using eTrAC: mean 9.2, SD 0.75), overall NPS scores, and participant debrief interviews indicated nurse and patient satisfaction and acceptance of the Guardian and eTrAC systems. Both user groups stressed the need for additional opportunities to practice in order to become comfortable and proficient in the use of these systems. Conclusions User testing indicated a high degree of user acceptance of Philips’ Guardian and eTrAC systems among nurses and patients. Key insights were provided that informed refinement of clinical workflow training and systems implementation. These results were used to optimize workflows before the launch of an international RCT of in-hospital RAM and virtual hospital-to-home care for patients undergoing cardiac and major vascular surgery.

[1]  L. Thabane,et al.  Challenges With Continuous Pulse Oximetry Monitoring and Wireless Clinician Notification Systems After Surgery: Reactive Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial , 2019, JMIR medical informatics.

[2]  Mark C. Field,et al.  Postoperative Remote Automated Monitoring and Virtual Hospital-to-Home Care System Following Cardiac and Major Vascular Surgery: User Testing Study (Preprint) , 2019 .

[3]  D. Sessler,et al.  Incidence, Severity, and Detection of Blood Pressure Perturbations after Abdominal Surgery: A Prospective Blinded Observational Study , 2019, Anesthesiology.

[4]  Majid Sarrafzadeh,et al.  Feasibility study of an EHR-integrated mobile shared decision making application , 2019, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[5]  D. Sessler,et al.  Beyond 'failure to rescue': the time has come for continuous ward monitoring. , 2019, British journal of anaesthesia.

[6]  D. Jayne,et al.  Continuous Versus Intermittent Vital Signs Monitoring Using a Wearable, Wireless Patch in Patients Admitted to Surgical Wards: Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[7]  S. Bhavnani,et al.  Postoperative Remote Automated Monitoring: Need for and State of the Science. , 2018, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[8]  D. Jayne,et al.  Trial of Remote Continuous versus Intermittent NEWS monitoring after major surgery (TRaCINg): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial , 2018, Pilot and Feasibility Studies.

[9]  Elena S. Izmailova,et al.  Wearable Devices in Clinical Trials: Hype and Hypothesis , 2018, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[10]  Rinaldo Bellomo,et al.  Effect of an automated notification system for deteriorating ward patients on clinical outcomes , 2017, Critical Care.

[11]  Belen Corbacho,et al.  Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention , 2017, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[12]  T. Sachs,et al.  Characterization of Planned and Unplanned 30-Day Readmissions Following Vascular Surgical Procedures , 2017, Vascular and endovascular surgery.

[13]  Jeffrey Braithwaite,et al.  Vital signs monitoring on general wards: clinical staff perceptions of current practices and the planned introduction of continuous monitoring technology. , 2016, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[14]  Mark C. Field,et al.  Technology-Enabled Remote Monitoring and Self-Management — Vision for Patient Empowerment Following Cardiac and Vascular Surgery: User Testing and Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol , 2016, JMIR research protocols.

[15]  R. Shemin,et al.  Use of digital health kits to reduce readmission after cardiac surgery. , 2016, The Journal of surgical research.

[16]  J. Rademakers,et al.  The Net Promoter Score – an asset to patient experience surveys? , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[17]  Jarrod E Dalton,et al.  Postoperative Hypoxemia Is Common and Persistent: A Prospective Blinded Observational Study , 2015, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[18]  R. McEachan,et al.  Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial , 2014, Trials.

[19]  S. Burks,et al.  Readmissions after cardiac surgery: experience of the National Institutes of Health/Canadian Institutes of Health research cardiothoracic surgical trials network. , 2014, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[20]  P. Gazarian Nurses' response to frequency and types of electrocardiography alarms in a non-critical care setting: a descriptive study. , 2014, International journal of nursing studies.

[21]  K. Kent,et al.  Unplanned readmissions after vascular surgery. , 2014, Journal of vascular surgery.

[22]  Elizabeth Card,et al.  Nurse adoption of continuous patient monitoring on acute post-surgical units: managing technology implementation. , 2011, Journal of nursing management.

[23]  D. O'Regan,et al.  Postdischarge complications: what exactly happens when the patient goes home? , 2011, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[24]  Jonathan Kendler,et al.  Usability Testing of Medical Devices , 2010 .

[25]  Daryl A Jones,et al.  Documentation of clinical review and vital signs after major surgery , 2008, The Medical journal of Australia.

[26]  I. Mitchell,et al.  Missed opportunities? An observational study of vital sign measurements. , 2008, Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine.

[27]  Miguel P Caldas,et al.  Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches , 2003 .

[28]  A. Turner,et al.  Optimising self-management to reduce chronic pain and disability after cardiac surgery , 2015 .

[29]  Jonas S. Almeida,et al.  which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Fractal MapReduce decomposition of sequence alignment , 2011 .