Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33401370›Full record

ArticleJMIR perioperative medicine2018

A Digital Patient-Led Hospital Checklist for Enhancing Safety in Cataract Surgery: Qualitative Study.

Aline C Stolk-Vos, Jolet Je van der Steen, Constance Hc Drossaert, Annemarie Braakman-Jansen, Bart Lm Zijlmans, Leonieke W Kranenburg, Dirk F de Korne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR perioperative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Designing Inpatient Portals to Support Patient Agency and Dynamic Hospital Experiences.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020
    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

7 authors.

Aline C Stolk-VosRotterdam Ophthalmic Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5573-3111
Jolet Je van der SteenDutch Federation of Patients, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1586-9115
Constance Hc DrossaertVakgroep Psychologie, Gezondheid & Technologie, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7083-3169
Annemarie Braakman-JansenVakgroep Psychologie, Gezondheid & Technologie, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6430-3946
Bart Lm ZijlmansRotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6263-9676
Leonieke W KranenburgSection Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5941-1056
Dirk F de KorneSection Health Services, Management and Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1311-2453

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgery holds high risk for iatrogenic patient harm. Correct and sufficient communication and information during the surgical process is a root solution for preventing patient harm. Information technology may substantially contribute to engaging patients in this process.

objectiveTo explore the feasibility of a digital patient-led checklist for cataract surgery, we evaluated the experiences of patients and nurses who have used this novel tool with a focus on use, appreciation, and impact.

methodsA multidisciplinary team, including cataract surgeons, nurses, pharmacists and administrative representatives developed a 19-item digital patient-led checklist for cataract patients who underwent surgery in an ambulatory setting. This "EYEpad" checklist was distributed to patients and their companions during their hospital visit via an application on a tablet. It contained necessary information the patient should have received before or during the surgical preparation (8 items), before anesthesia (2 items), and before discharge (9 items). Patients and their companions were invited to actively indicate the information they received, or information discussed with them, by ticking on the EYEpad. Our qualitative research design included semi-structured individual interviews with 17 patients and a focus group involving 6 nurses. The transcripts were analyzed by 2 independent coders using both deductive and inductive coding.

resultsAll but one of the 17 patients used the EYEpad, occasionally assisted by his or her companion (usually the partner). In several cases, the checklist was completed by the companion. Most patients felt positively about the usability of the EYEpad. Yet, for most of the patients, it was not clear why they received the checklist. Only 4 of them indicated that they understood that the EYEpad was used to determine if there were sufficient and correct information discussed or checked by the nurses. Although most nurses agreed the EYEpad was easy to use and could be a useful tool for improving patient engagement for improving safety, they felt that not all elderly patients were willing or capable of using it and it interfered with the existing surgical process. They also anticipated the need to spend more time explaining the purpose and use of the EYEpad.

conclusionsOur results showed that a digital patient-led checklist is a potentially valid way to increase patient participation in safety improvement efforts, even among elderly patients. It also illustrates the crucial role nurses play in the implementation and diffusion of technological innovations. Increased patient participation will only improve safety when both healthcare workers and patients feel empowered to share responsibility and balance their power.

Indexed as

cataractchecklisthandheld computershealth communicationhealth information managementinformation technologypatient participationpatient safetysurgery

Identifiers

PMID33401370
PMCPMC7709842

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.