Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36304524›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2022

Postsurgical Remote Patient Monitoring Outcomes and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Assessment.

Aaron Spaulding, Erica Loomis, Emily Brennan, Diane Klein, Karlyn Pierson, Rochelle Willford, M Susan Hallbeck, Janani Reisenauer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Single-stage outpatient laparoendoscopic treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aaron SpauldingDivision of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Erica LoomisDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Emily BrennanDivision of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Diane KleinCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Karlyn PiersonDepartment of Surgery Clinical Research Office, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Rochelle WillfordRemote Monitoring, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
M Susan HallbeckRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Janani ReisenauerDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To determine how postsurgical remote patient monitoring (RPM) influences readmissions and emergency visits within 30 days of discharge after operation and to understand patient and surgeon perspectives on postsurgical RPM. Patients and Methods: This study was conducted at a US tertiary academic medical center between April 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. This mixed-methods evaluation included a randomized controlled trial evaluation of RPM after operation and a qualitative assessment of patients' and surgeons' perceptions of RPM's acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness. Results: A total of 292 patients participated in the RPM trial, and 147 were assigned to the RPM intervention. Despite a good balance between the groups, results indicated no difference in primary or secondary outcomes between the intervention and control groups. The qualitative component included 11 patients and 9 surgeons. The overarching theme for patients was that the program brought them peace of mind. Other main themes included technological issues and perceived benefits of the RPM platform. The major themes for surgeons included identifying the best patients to receive postsurgical RPM, actionable data collection and use, and improvements in data collection needed. Conclusion: Although quantitative results indicate no difference between the groups, postsurgical RPM appears well-accepted from the patient's perspective. However, technological issues could eliminate the benefits. Hospitals seeking to implement similar programs should carefully evaluate which populations to use the program in and seek to collect actionable data.

Indexed as

ASA, American Society of AnesthesiologistsECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology GroupED, emergency departmentLOS, length of stayRPM, remote patient monitoringSD, standard deviation

Identifiers

PMID36304524
PMCPMC9594118
OpenAlexW4307059692

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.