Literature DB >> 32929659

Evaluation of a preoperative personalized risk communication tool: a prospective before-and-after study.

Emily Hladkowicz1,2,3, David Yachnin1,3, Laura Boland3,4, Kumanan Wilson3,5, Annette McKinnon6, Kira Hawrysh6, Terry Hawrysh6, Cameron Bell3, Katherine Atkinson7, Carl van Walraven3,5,8, Monica Taljaard3,8, Kednapa Thavorn3,8, Dawn Stacey3,9, Homer Yang10, Christopher Pysyk1,3,11, Husein Moloo3,12, Doug Manuel3,8, David MacDonald13, Luke T Lavallée3,12, Sylvain Gagne1,11, Alan J Forster3,5,8, Gregory L Bryson1,3,11, Daniel I McIsaac14,15,16,17.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patients want personalized information before surgery; most do not receive personalized risk estimates. Inadequate information contributes to poor experience and medicolegal complaints. We hypothesized that exposure to the Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment (PREDICT) app, a personalized risk communication tool, would improve patient knowledge and satisfaction after anesthesiology consultations compared with standard care.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective clinical study (before-after design) and used patient-reported data to calculate personalized risks of morbidity, mortality, and expected length of stay using a locally calibrated National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator embedded in the PREDICT app. In the standard care (before) phase, the application's materials and output were not available to participants; in the PREDICT app (after) phase, personalized risks were communicated. Our primary outcome was knowledge score after the anesthesiology consultation. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, anxiety, feasibility, and acceptability.
RESULTS: We included 183 participants (90 before; 93 after). Compared with standard care phase, the PREDICT app phase had higher post-consultation: knowledge of risks (14.3% higher; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 22.0; P < 0.001) and satisfaction (0.8 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.4; P = 0.03). Anxiety was unchanged (- 1.9%; 95% CI, - 4.2 to 0.5; P = 0.13). Acceptability was high for patients and anesthesiologists.
CONCLUSION: Exposure to a patient-facing, personalized risk communication app improved knowledge of personalized risk and increased satisfaction for adults before elective inpatient surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); registered 5 February 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; eHealth; risks; surgery; technology

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32929659     DOI: 10.1007/s12630-020-01809-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  6 in total

1.  British Paediatric and Adolescent Bone Group's position statement on vitamin D deficiency.

Authors:  Paul Arundel; S F Ahmed; J Allgrove; N J Bishop; C P Burren; B Jacobs; M Z Mughal; A C Offiah; N J Shaw
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-12-03

2.  Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

Authors:  Tammy C Hoffmann; Paul P Glasziou; Isabelle Boutron; Ruairidh Milne; Rafael Perera; David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Virginia Barbour; Helen Macdonald; Marie Johnston; Sarah E Lamb; Mary Dixon-Woods; Peter McCulloch; Jeremy C Wyatt; An-Wen Chan; Susan Michie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-03-07

3.  Informed consent: what do patients want to know?

Authors:  P J Dawes; P Davison
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 18.000

4.  Selective depletion of tumour suppressors Deleted in Colorectal Cancer (DCC) and neogenin by environmental and endogenous serine proteases: linking diet and cancer.

Authors:  Caroline M Forrest; Kara McNair; Maria C J Vincenten; L Gail Darlington; Trevor W Stone
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  A survey of the current practice of the informed consent process in general surgery in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Wouter Kg Leclercq; Bram J Keulers; Saskia Houterman; Margot Veerman; Johan Legemaate; Marc R Scheltinga
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2013-01-21

Review 6.  Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments.

Authors:  Karen R Sepucha; Cornelia M Borkhoff; Joanne Lally; Carrie A Levin; Daniel D Matlock; Chirk Jenn Ng; Mary E Ropka; Dawn Stacey; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Celia E Wills; Richard Thomson
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 2.796

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  A qualitative analysis of patient-reported anticipated benefits of having elective surgery.

Authors:  David Yachnin; Emily Hladkowicz; Daniel I McIsaac
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.063

2.  Facilitating and supporting the engagement of patients, families and caregivers in research: the "Ottawa model" for patient engagement in research.

Authors:  Shelley Vanderhout; Stuart Nicholls; Zarah Monfaredi; Claudia Hampel; Lynn Ashdown; Maxime Bilodeau; Susan Rich; Beverley Shea; Dean Fergusson
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2022-06-07

3.  Identification of Requirements for a Postoperative Pediatric Pain Risk Communication Tool: Focus Group Study With Clinicians and Family Members.

Authors:  Michael D Wood; Kim Correa; Peijia Ding; Rama Sreepada; Kent C Loftsgard; Isabel Jordan; Nicholas C West; Simon D Whyte; Elodie Portales-Casamar; Matthias Görges
Journal:  JMIR Pediatr Parent       Date:  2022-07-15

4.  Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information.

Authors:  Ruben D Vromans; Saar Hommes; Felix J Clouth; Deborah N N Lo-Fo-Wong; Xander A A M Verbeek; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Steffen Pauws; Emiel Krahmer
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 3.298

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.