RATIONALE: The length of hospital stay after bariatric surgery has decreased rapidly in recent years to an average of 1 day (one midnight). The transition from a controlled hospital environment to home environment may be a big step for patients. For these patients, home monitoring can be a substitute. METHODS: A pilot study of 84 morbidly obese patients undergoing either laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LGS) was performed. Home monitoring consisted of daily contact via video consultation and measurement of vital signs at home. The primary outcome was feasibility of home monitoring. Secondary outcomes were complications and patient satisfaction measured with a questionnaire (PSQ-18). RESULTS: In 77 of the 84 patients (92%), videoconference was possible on day 1, 74 patients (88%) on day 2 and 76 patients (90%) on day 3. Four patients (5%) were never reached. On day 1, 52 patients (62%) performed all instructed measurements, on day 2, 49 patients (58%) and on day 3, 63 patients (75%). Only 47 out of 84 patients (56%) measured the instructed amount of times on all 3 days. High satisfaction rates were reported in the patients receiving home monitoring. CONCLUSION: Our first experience with home monitoring was disappointing since home monitoring of vital signs had poor compliance and not all patients were able to use the application. Further refinement of the home monitoring tool is needed to increase compliance and utility of the tool.
RATIONALE: The length of hospital stay after bariatric surgery has decreased rapidly in recent years to an average of 1 day (one midnight). The transition from a controlled hospital environment to home environment may be a big step for patients. For these patients, home monitoring can be a substitute. METHODS: A pilot study of 84 morbidly obesepatients undergoing either laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LGS) was performed. Home monitoring consisted of daily contact via video consultation and measurement of vital signs at home. The primary outcome was feasibility of home monitoring. Secondary outcomes were complications and patient satisfaction measured with a questionnaire (PSQ-18). RESULTS: In 77 of the 84 patients (92%), videoconference was possible on day 1, 74 patients (88%) on day 2 and 76 patients (90%) on day 3. Four patients (5%) were never reached. On day 1, 52 patients (62%) performed all instructed measurements, on day 2, 49 patients (58%) and on day 3, 63 patients (75%). Only 47 out of 84 patients (56%) measured the instructed amount of times on all 3 days. High satisfaction rates were reported in the patients receiving home monitoring. CONCLUSION: Our first experience with home monitoring was disappointing since home monitoring of vital signs had poor compliance and not all patients were able to use the application. Further refinement of the home monitoring tool is needed to increase compliance and utility of the tool.
Authors: Leonie T Jonker; Maarten M H Lahr; Maaike H M Oonk; Geertruida H de Bock; Barbara L van Leeuwen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Dirk Versteegden; Magaly van Himbeeck; Anne W Burghoorn; Peter Lovei; Eva Deckers; Jos-Marien Jansen; Simon Nienhuijs Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-05-06