Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34627112›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2021

Exploring patient perspectives on telemedicine monitoring within the operating room.

Joanna Abraham, Alicia Meng, Katherine J Holzer, Luke Brawer, Aparna Casarella, Michael Avidan, Mary C Politi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Advances in Remote Monitoring Technology Applications in Anesthesia: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. An ethnographic study on the impact of a novel telemedicine-based support system in the operating room.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  6. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joanna AbrahamDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, United States; Institute for Informatics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, United States. Electronic address: joannaa@wustl.edu.
Alicia MengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, United States.
Katherine J HolzerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, United States.
Luke BrawerWallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Aparna CasarellaBrown School at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Michael AvidanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, United States.
Mary C PolitiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, United States.
Washington University in St. Louis · USGeorgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

TECTONICS (Telemedicine Control Tower for the OR: Navigating Information, Care and Safety) trialR01NR017916 · NINR · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AVIDAN, MICHAEL SIMON · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
Anesthesiology Control Tower: Feedback Alerts to Supplement Treatment (ACTFAST)R21HS024581 · AHRQ · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AVIDAN, MICHAEL SIMON · 2017 to 2018
$300k
AHRQ HHS R21 HS024581NINR NIH HHS R01 NR017916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision support systems and telemedicine for remote monitoring can together support clinicians' intraoperative decision-making and management of surgical patients' care. However, there has been limited investigation on patient perspectives about advanced health information technology use in intraoperative settings, especially an electronic OR (eOR) for remote monitoring and management of surgical patients. PURPOSE: Our study objectives were: (1) to identify participant-rated items contributing to patient attitudes, beliefs, and level of comfort with eOR monitoring; and (2) to highlight barriers and facilitators to eOR use.

methodsWe surveyed 324 individuals representing surgical patients across the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online platform supporting internet-based work. The structured survey questions examined the level of agreement and comfort with eOR for remote patient monitoring. We calculated descriptive statistics for demographic variables and performed a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test to assess whether participants were more comfortable with familiar clinicians from local hospitals or health systems monitoring their health and safety status during surgery than clinicians from hospitals or health systems in other regions or countries. We also analyzed open-ended survey responses using a thematic approach informed by an eight-dimensional socio-technical model.

resultsParticipants' average age was 34.07 (SD = 10.11). Most were white (80.9%), male (57.1%), and had a high school degree or more (88.3%). Participants reported a higher level of comfort with clinicians they knew monitoring their health and safety than clinicians they did not know, even within the same healthcare system (z = -4.012, p < .001). They reported significantly higher comfort levels with clinicians within the same hospital or health system in the United States than those in a different country (z = -10.230, p < .001). Facilitators and barriers to eOR remote monitoring were prevalent across four socio-technical dimensions: 1) organizational policies, procedures, environment, and culture; 2) people; 3) workflow and communication; and 4) hardware and software. Facilitators to eOR use included perceptions of improved patient safety through a safeguard system and perceptions of streamlined care. Barriers included fears of incorrect eOR patient assessments, decision-making conflicts between care teams, and technological malfunctions.

conclusionsParticipants expressed significant support for intraoperative telemedicine use and greater comfort with local telemedicine systems instead of long-distance telemedicine systems. Reservations centered on organizational policies, procedures, environment, culture; people; workflow and communication; and hardware and software. To improve the buy-in and acceptability of remote monitoring by an eOR team, we offer a few evidence-based guidelines applicable to telemedicine use within the context of OR workflow. Guidelines include backup plans for technical challenges, rigid care, and privacy standards, and patient education to increase understanding of telemedicine's potential to improve patient care.

Indexed as

Operating RoomsTelemedicineAdultCommunicationFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicUnited StatesOperating roomRemote monitoringSurgeryTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34627112
PMCPMC10627166
OpenAlexW3201931698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.