Molly L Tolins1, Daniel S Hippe2, Sophie C Morse3, Heather L Evans4, William B Lober5, Marie C Vrablik3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, The Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, California. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 5. Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) do not have primary care and risk being lost to follow-up. Technology has been used successfully in surgical populations for wound care follow-up yet this is not well studied in ED populations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a pilot study demonstrating "smartphone" application-based follow-up after wound care in the ED. METHODS: We enrolled participants in 2 urban EDs using a smartphone application called Mobile Post-Operative Wound Evaluator (mPOWEr) and defined participation as photographic submission at any time during the study period. We collected demographic data, frequency of use of mPOWEr, number of photographs uploaded, and timing of uploads. RESULTS: We approached patients for study enrollment, and 67 patients (28%) were not enrolled because they had no access to a smartphone. Seventy-one patients (30%) declined to enroll, leaving 100 (42%) successfully enrolled. Smartphone ownership was more common among patients <40 years of age (81% vs. 64%, p = 0.004), more common among white patients than nonwhite patients (75% vs. 15%, p = 0.046), more common among patients approached at the university medical center than the trauma center (84% vs. 66%, p = 0.003), and among patients with commercial or other insurance than those with Medicare or Medicaid (92% vs. 54%, p < 0.001). Of those enrolled, 58% submitted a photograph. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting for wound care to the ED will participate in smartphone-based app communication for wound care follow-up and are satisfied with this option. Disparities in smartphone access must be considered when using this follow-up method.
BACKGROUND: Many patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) do not have primary care and risk being lost to follow-up. Technology has been used successfully in surgical populations for wound care follow-up yet this is not well studied in ED populations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a pilot study demonstrating "smartphone" application-based follow-up after wound care in the ED. METHODS: We enrolled participants in 2 urban EDs using a smartphone application called Mobile Post-Operative Wound Evaluator (mPOWEr) and defined participation as photographic submission at any time during the study period. We collected demographic data, frequency of use of mPOWEr, number of photographs uploaded, and timing of uploads. RESULTS: We approached patients for study enrollment, and 67 patients (28%) were not enrolled because they had no access to a smartphone. Seventy-one patients (30%) declined to enroll, leaving 100 (42%) successfully enrolled. Smartphone ownership was more common among patients <40 years of age (81% vs. 64%, p = 0.004), more common among white patients than nonwhite patients (75% vs. 15%, p = 0.046), more common among patients approached at the university medical center than the trauma center (84% vs. 66%, p = 0.003), and among patients with commercial or other insurance than those with Medicare or Medicaid (92% vs. 54%, p < 0.001). Of those enrolled, 58% submitted a photograph. CONCLUSIONS:Patients presenting for wound care to the ED will participate in smartphone-based app communication for wound care follow-up and are satisfied with this option. Disparities in smartphone access must be considered when using this follow-up method.
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Thomas M Diehl; James R Barrett; Daniel E Abbott; Linda M Cherney Stafford; Bret M Hanlon; Qiuyu Yang; Rachel Van Doorn; Sharon M Weber; Corrine I Voils Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 2.226