Dataset Information

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic.

Design

Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Setting

8 acute care hospitals in Canada.

Participants

905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were randomised either to virtual care and RAM (n=451) or to standard care (n=454). 903 participants (99.8%) completed the 31 day follow-up.

Intervention

Participants in the experimental group received a tablet computer and RAM technology that measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and body weight. For 30 days the participants took daily biophysical measurements and photographs of their wound and interacted with nurses virtually. Participants in the standard care group received post-hospital discharge management according to the centre's usual care. Patients, healthcare providers, and data collectors were aware of patients' group allocations. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to group allocation.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up. The 12 secondary outcomes included acute hospital care, detection and correction of drug errors, and pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation.

Results

All 905 participants (mean age 63.1 years) were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised. Days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up were 29.7 in the virtual care group and 29.5 in the standard care group: relative risk 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.02); absolute difference 0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.5% to 0.9%). 99 participants (22.0%) in the virtual care group and 124 (27.3%) in the standard care group required acute hospital care: relative risk 0.80 (0.64 to 1.01); absolute difference 5.3% (-0.3% to 10.9%). More participants in the virtual care group than standard care group had a drug error detected (134 (29.7%) v 25 (5.5%); absolute difference 24.2%, 19.5% to 28.9%) and a drug error corrected (absolute difference 24.4%, 19.9% to 28.9%). Fewer participants in the virtual care group than standard care group reported pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation: absolute differences 13.9% (7.4% to 20.4%), 11.9% (5.1% to 18.7%), and 9.6% (2.9% to 16.3%), respectively. Beneficial effects proved substantially larger in centres with a higher rate of care escalation.

Conclusion

Virtual care with RAM shows promise in improving outcomes important to patients and to optimal health system function.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344665.

SUBMITTER: McGillion MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477638 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

McGillion Michael H MH Parlow Joel J Borges Flavia K FK Marcucci Maura M Jacka Michael M Adili Anthony A Lalu Manoj M MM Ouellette Carley C Bird Marissa M Ofori Sandra S Roshanov Pavel S PS Patel Ameen A Yang Homer H O'Leary Susan S Tandon Vikas V Hamilton Gavin M GM Mrkobrada Marko M Conen David D Harvey Valerie V Lounsbury Jennifer J Mian Rajibul R Bangdiwala Shrikant I SI Arellano Ramiro R Scott Ted T Guyatt Gordon H GH Gao Peggy P Graham Michelle M Nenshi Rahima R Forster Alan J AJ Nagappa Mahesh M Levesque Kelsea K Marosi Kristen K Chaudhry Sultan S Haider Shariq S Deuchar Lesly L LeBlanc Brandi B McCartney Colin J L CJL Schemitsch Emil H EH Vincent Jessica J Pettit Shirley M SM DuMerton Deborah D Paulin Angela Djuric AD Simunovic Marko M Williams David C DC Halman Samantha S Harlock John J Meyer Ralph M RM Taylor Dylan A DA Shanthanna Harsha H Schlachta Christopher M CM Parry Neil N Pichora David R DR Yousuf Haroon H Peter Elizabeth E Lamy Andre A Petch Jeremy J Moloo Husein H Sehmbi Herman H Waggott Melissa M Shelley Jessica J Belley-Cote Emilie P EP Devereaux P J PJ

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20210930

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic.<h4>Design</h4>Multicentre randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>8 acute care hospitals in Canada.<h4>Participants</h4>905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were rando ...[more]

PMID: 34593374

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWearable continuous monitoring biosensor technologies have the potential to transform postoperative care with early detection of impending clinical deterioration.ObjectiveOur aim was to validate the accuracy of Cloud DX Vitaliti continuous vital signs monitor (CVSM) continuous noninvasive blood pressure (cNIBP) measurements in postsurgical patients. A secondary aim was to examine user acceptance of the Vitaliti CVSM with respect to comfort, ease of application, sustainability of positioning, and aesthetics.MethodsIncluded participants were ≥18 years old and recovering from surgery in a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU). We targeted a maximum recruitment of 80 participants for verification and acceptance testing. We also oversampled to minimize the effect of unforeseen interruptions and other challenges to the study. Validation procedures were according to the International Standards Organization (ISO) 81060-2:2018 standards for wearable, cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices. Baseline BP was determined from the gold-standard ICU arterial catheter. The Vitaliti CVSM was calibrated against the reference arterial catheter. In static (seated in bed) and supine positions, 3 cNIBP measurements, each 30 seconds, were taken for each patient with the Vitaliti CVSM and an invasive arterial catheter. At the conclusion of each test session, captured cNIBP measurements were extracted using MediCollector BEDSIDE data extraction software, and Vitaliti CVSM measurements were extracted to a secure laptop through a cable connection. The errors of these determinations were calculated. Participants were interviewed about device acceptability.ResultsThe validation analysis included data for 20 patients. The average times from calibration to first measurement in the static position and to first measurement in the supine position were 133.85 seconds (2 minutes 14 seconds) and 535.15 seconds (8 minutes 55 seconds), respectively. The overall mean errors of determination for the static position were -0.621 (SD 4.640) mm Hg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 0.457 (SD 1.675) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Errors of determination were slightly higher for the supine position, at 2.722 (SD 5.207) mm Hg for SBP and 2.650 (SD 3.221) mm Hg for DBP. The majority rated the Vitaliti CVSM as comfortable. This study was limited to evaluation of the device during a very short validation period after calibration (ie, that commenced within 2 minutes after calibration and lasted for a short duration of time).ConclusionsWe found that the Cloud DX's Vitaliti CVSM demonstrated cNIBP measurement in compliance with ISO 81060-2:2018 standards in the context of evaluation that commenced within 2 minutes of device calibration; this device was also well-received by patients in a postsurgical ICU setting. Future studies will examine the accuracy of the Vitaliti CVSM in ambulatory contexts, with attention to assessment over a longer duration and the impact of excessive patient motion on data artifacts and signal quality.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03493867; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03493867.

Project description:IntroductionRemote symptom monitoring (RSM) allows patients to electronically self-report symptoms to their healthcare team for individual management. Clinical trials have demonstrated overarching benefits; however, little is known regarding patient-perceived benefits and limitations of RSM programs used during patient care.MethodsThis prospective qualitative study from December 2021 to May 2023 included patients with cancer participating in standard-of-care RSM at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in Birmingham, AL, and the Univeristy of South Alabama (USA) Health Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI) in Mobile, AL. Semi-structured interviews focused on patient experiences with and perceptions surrounding RSM participation. Interviews occurred over the phone, via digital videoconference, or in person, at the convenience of the patient. Grounded theory was used to conduct content coding and identify recurring themes and exemplary quotes using NVivo.ResultsForty patients (20 UAB, 20 MCI) were interviewed. Participants were predominately female (87.5%), aged 41-65 (50%), and married (57.5%). Data is consistent with local demographics, comprising mainly White (72.5%) and 27.5% Black individuals. Three main themes emerged regarding perceived benefits of RSM: (1) Facilitation of Proactive Management, identifying the patient's needs and intervening earlier to alleviate symptom burden; (2) Promotion of Symptom Self-Management, providing patients autonomy in their cancer care; and (3) Improvement in Patient-Healthcare Provider Relationships, fostering genuine connections based on healthcare team's responses. However, participants also noted Perceived Limitations of RSM; particularly when support of symptom management was unnecessary, ineffective, or felt impersonal.ConclusionThis study focused on patient experiences when utilizing a RSM program while undergoing treatment for cancer and found benefits to its implementation that extended beyond symptom management. At the same time, patients noted drawbacks experienced during RSM, which can help with future tailoring of RSM programs. Patient perceptions should be regularly assessed and highlighted for successful and sustained implementation.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been shown to reduce hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C). Accordingly, guidelines recommend SMBG up to 4-10 times daily for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on insulin. For persons not on insulin, recommendations are equivocal. Newer technology-enabled blood glucose monitoring (BGM) devices can facilitate remote monitoring of glycemic data. New evidence generated by remote BGM may help to guide best practices for frequency and timing of finger-stick blood glucose (FSBG) monitoring in uncontrolled T2DM patients managed in primary care settings. This study aims to evaluate the impact of SMBG utility and frequency on glycemic outcomes using a novel BGM system which auto-transfers near real-time FSBG data to a cloud-based dashboard using cellular networks.MethodsSecondary analysis of the intervention arm of a comparative non-randomized trial with propensity-matched chart controls. Adults with T2DM and HbA1C > 9% receiving care in five primary care practices in a healthcare system participated in a 3-month diabetes boot camp (DBC) using telemedicine and a novel BGM to support comprehensive diabetes care management. The primary independent variable was frequency of FSBG. Secondary outcomes included frequency of FSBG by insulin status, distribution of FSBG checks by time of day, and hypoglycemia rates.Results48,111 FSBGs were transmitted by 359 DBC completers. Participants performed 1.5 FSBG checks/day; with 1.6 checks/day for those on basal/bolus insulin. Higher FSBG frequency was associated with greater improvement in HbA1C independent of insulin treatment status (p = 0.0003). FSBG frequency was higher in patients treated with insulin (p = 0.003). FSBG checks were most common pre-breakfast and post-dinner. Hypoglycemia was rare (1.2% < 70 mg/dL).ConclusionsAdults with uncontrolled T2DM achieved significant HbA1C improvement performing just 1.5 FSBGs daily during a technology-enabled diabetes care intervention. Among the 40% taking insulin, this improvement was achieved with a lower FSBG frequency than guidelines recommend. For those not on insulin, despite a lower frequency of FSBG, they achieved a greater reduction in A1C compared to patients on insulin. Low frequency FSBG monitoring pre-breakfast and post-dinner can potentially support optimization of glycemic control regardless of insulin status in the primary care setting.Trial registrationTrial registration number: NCT02925312 (10/19/2016).

Project description:PurposeThe Olleyes VisuALL-K is a pediatric videogame-based static threshold perimeter using a virtual reality headset. We determined normal threshold sensitivities for the 24-2 test locations using the virtual reality perimetry (VRP) and also tested patients on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Patient satisfaction for the two instruments was compared.MethodsThis exploratory study tested 50 normal pediatric participants aged 8 to 17 years on the HFA and VRP. The main outcome measure was threshold sensitivity at the 24-2 test locations for the two instruments.ResultsThe mean participant age was 13.0 ± 2.6 years; 50% were female. The threshold values for VRP are reported as measured on the device and after conversion to an HFA-equivalent scale. Age-adjusted thresholds showed a mean sensitivity of 31.8 ± 1.1 dB (46.1 ± dB HFA equivalent) diminution from the maximum light intensity in the VRP and 31.0 ± 1.5 dB diminution from the maximum light intensity in the HFA; interparticipant variability in mean threshold sensitivity was 2.7 ± 0.4 dB for the VRP and 2.7 ± 0.6 dB for the HFA. The HFA demonstrated decreased threshold sensitivity with increasing eccentricity, whereas the VRP threshold did not seem to vary with eccentricity. Mild age effects on threshold sensitivity were seen in the VRP and the HFA (R2 = 0.11, P < 0.001 and R2 = 0.05, P < 0.05, respectively). The mean time to completion for VRP and HFA was 7.6 ± 1.5 and 5.3 ± 0.9 min/eye, respectively (P < 0.0001). Patient satisfaction scores favored VRP (P < 0.01) despite the longer test duration.ConclusionsThe Olleyes game-based VRP and HFA can be used to map out the peripheral vision in normal children. The VRP has a higher patient satisfaction when used in children than the HFA. The portability of the test allows it to be performed in a myriad of environments, lending a flexibility that can benefit this population.Translational relevanceThis virtual reality perimetry device provides an alternative to the Humphrey Field Analyzer for children.

Dataset Information

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets