Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35171104›Full record

ArticleJMIR perioperative medicine2022

The Potential Impacts of a Digital Preoperative Assessment Service on Appointments, Travel-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and User Experience: Case Study.

Madison Milne-Ives, John Leyden, Inocencio Maramba, Arunangsu Chatterjee, Edward Meinert

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR perioperative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05535205 (Effectiveness and Costs of a Digital Versus Face-to-face Preoperative Assessment Clinic), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT05535205 nacompletednot on this map

Effectiveness and Costs of a Digital Versus Face-to-face Preoperative Assessment Clinic: a Non-inferiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorDiakonessenhuis, UtrechtRan2021 to 2022Enrolled252ConditionsSurgeryArmsDigital preoperative assessment, Face-to-face preoperative assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Madison Milne-IvesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7628-882X
John LeydenUltramed Ltd, Truro, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9077-0206
Inocencio MarambaCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5464-6021
Arunangsu ChatterjeeCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9506-6007
Edward MeinertCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2484-3347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) cannot keep up with the demand for operations and procedures. Preoperative assessments can be conducted on the internet to improve efficiency and reduce wait times for operations. MyPreOp is a cloud-based platform where patients can complete preoperative questionnaires. These are reviewed by a nurse who determines whether they need a subsequent face-to-face appointment.

objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to describe the potential impact of MyPreOp (Ultramed Ltd) on the number of face-to-face appointments. The secondary objectives are to examine the time spent on preoperative assessments completed using MyPreOp in NHS Trusts and user ratings of usability and acceptability.

methodsThe study design was a case study service evaluation. Data were collected using the MyPreOp system from 2 NHS Trusts (Guy's and St Thomas' and Royal United Hospitals Bath) and the private BMI Bath Clinic during the 4-month period from September to December 2020. Participants were adults of any age and health status at the participating hospitals who used MyPreOp to complete a preoperative assessment before a scheduled surgery. The primary outcome was the number of face-to-face appointments avoided by patients who used MyPreOp. The investigated secondary outcomes included the length of time spent by nurses completing preoperative assessments, associated travel-related carbon dioxide emissions compared with standard care, and quantitative user feedback. User feedback was assessed at all 3 sites; however, the other outcomes could only be examined in the Royal United Hospitals Bath sample because of data limitations.

resultsData from 2500 participants were included. Half of the assessed patients did not need a further face-to-face appointment and required a median of only 5.3 minutes of nurses' time to review. The reduction in appointments was associated with a small saving of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (9.05 tons). Patient feedback was generally positive: 79.8% (317/397) of respondents rated MyPreOp as easy or very easy to use, and 85.2% (340/399) thought the overall experience was good or very good.

conclusionsThis evaluation demonstrates the potential benefits of MyPreOp. However, further research using rigorous scientific methodology and a larger sample of NHS Trusts and users is needed to provide strong evidence of MyPreOp's efficacy, usability, and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

appointmentscost-effectiveeconomicpreoperative carepreoperative periodtelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35171104
PMCPMC8892318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.