Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32186521›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

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

Michael McGillion, Carley Ouellette, Amber Good, Marissa Bird, Shaunattonie Henry, Wendy Clyne, Andrew Turner, Paul Ritvo, Sarah Ritvo, Nazari Dvirnik and 17 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael McGillionSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1343-7012
Carley OuelletteMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3242-6164
Amber GoodPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1714-7872
Marissa BirdSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2188-0767
Shaunattonie HenrySchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8140-1911
Wendy ClyneHope for the Community CIC, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1523-7003
Andrew TurnerCoventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6538-4242
Paul RitvoYork University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1141-0083
Sarah RitvoYork University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1889-5194
Nazari DvirnikPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1553-9805
Andre LamyPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2777-7621
Richard WhitlockPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6863-5884
Christopher LawtonHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6853-3351
Jake WalshHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5759-1070
Ken PatersonHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9440-5743
Janine DuquetteCardiac and Vascular Program, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7669-7498
Karla Sanchez MedeirosPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0176-9666
Fadi EliasPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0086-4461
Ted ScottHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6190-050X
Joseph MillsLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7373-3980
Deborah HarringtonLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5326-3996
Mark FieldLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4817-6035
Prathiba HarshaMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6562-0479
Stephen YangMcGill University, Montreal, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3859-5110
Elizabeth PeterLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8155-216X
Sanjeev BhavnaniScripps Clinic & Research Foundation, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8161-9523
P J DevereauxPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2935-637X
Population Health Research Institute · CAHamilton Health Sciences · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Liverpool · GBYork University · CACoventry University · GBMcGill University · CAProject HOPE · USScripps Health · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR 348440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiac 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.

objectiveAs 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.

methodsNurses 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsUser 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.

Indexed as

User-Computer InterfaceAgedCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHome Care ServicesHospitalsHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicPostoperative Periodmonitoring, physiologicpostoperative careuser testing

Identifiers

PMID32186521
PMCPMC7113803
OpenAlexW2995702400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.