BackgroundThe most frequent complication observed after ambulatory surgery is acute postoperative pain.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the late incidence of postoperative pain at 7 days after day surgery.MethodsWe retrospectively included patients who underwent day surgery under general or regional anesthesia and those who underwent local anesthesia in Rouen University Hospital from January 2018 to February 2020. Data collected were moderate-to-severe pain reports defined as numeric rating scale (NRS)>3/10 at 1 day (secondary end point) and 7 days (primary end point) after surgery. These data were collected using a semi-intelligent SMS text messaging platform to follow up with the patient at home after ambulatory surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze the risk factors for pain.ResultsWe analyzed 6099 patients. On the day after the surgery, 5.2% (318/6099) of the patients presented with moderate-to-severe pain: 5.9% (248/4187) in the general or regional anesthesia group and 3.7% (70/1912) in the local anesthesia group. At 7 days after the surgery, 18.6% (1135/6099) of the patients presented with moderate-to-severe pain, including 21.3% (892/4187) of the patients in the general or regional anesthesia group and 12.7% (243/1912) of the patients in the local anesthesia group. General surgery (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 1.23-1.92; P<.01) and orthopedic surgery (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.42-1.94; P<.01) were associated with more late postoperative pain risk. Male gender (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76; P<.01), ophthalmology surgery (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.62; P<.01), and gynecologic surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.88; P=.01) were associated with less late postoperative pain risk. The rate of emergency consultation or rehospitalization at 7 days after the surgery was 11.1% (679/6099). Late postoperative pain (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.98-3.32; P<.001), general surgery (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.65-2.81; P<.001), and urology surgery (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06-2.43; P=.02) increased the risk of emergency consultation or rehospitalization. Orthopedic surgery (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P=.04) and electroconvulsive therapy (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.65; P<.001) were associated with less rates of emergency consultation or rehospitalization.ConclusionsOur study shows that postoperative pain at 7 days after ambulatory surgery was reported in more than 18% of the cases, which was also associated with an increase in the emergency consultation or rehospitalization rates.

BackgroundThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol has been recently extended to hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, with excellent outcomes reported. Early mobilization is an essential facet of the ERAS protocol, but compliance has been reported to be poor. We recently reported our success in a 6-month clinical practice improvement program (CPIP) for early postoperative mobilization. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we experienced reduced staffing and resource availability, which can make CPIP sustainability difficult.ObjectiveWe report outcomes at 1 year following the implementation of our CPIP to improve postoperative mobilization in patients undergoing major HPB surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe divided our study into 4 phases—phase 1: before CPIP implementation (January to April 2019); phase 2: CPIP implementation (May to September 2019); phase 3: post–CPIP implementation but prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (October 2019 to March 2020); and phase 4: post–CPIP implementation and during the pandemic (April 2020 to September 2020). Major HPB surgery was defined as any surgery on the liver, pancreas, and biliary system with a duration of >2 hours and with an anticipated blood loss of ≥500 ml. Study variables included length of hospital stay, distance ambulated on postoperative day (POD) 2, morbidity, balance measures (incidence of fall and accidental dislodgement of drains), and reasons for failure to achieve targets. Successful mobilization was defined as the ability to sit out of bed for >6 hours on POD 1 and ambulate ≥30 m on POD 2. The target mobilization rate was ≥75%.ResultsA total of 114 patients underwent major HPB surgery from phases 2 to 4 of our study, with 33 (29.0%), 45 (39.5%), and 36 (31.6%) patients in phases 2, 3, and 4, respectively. No baseline patient demographic data were collected for phase 1 (pre–CPIP implementation). The majority of the patients were male (n=79, 69.3%) and underwent hepatic surgery (n=92, 80.7%). A total of 76 (66.7%) patients underwent ON-Q PainBuster insertion intraoperatively. The median mobilization rate was 22% for phase 1, 78% for phases 2 and 3 combined, and 79% for phase 4. The mean pain score was 2.7 (SD 1.0) on POD 1 and 1.8 (SD 1.5) on POD 2. The median length of hospitalization was 6 days (IQR 5-11.8). There were no falls or accidental dislodgement of drains. Six patients (5.3%) had pneumonia, and 21 (18.4%) patients failed to ambulate ≥30 m on POD 2 from phases 2 to 4. The most common reason for failure to achieve the ambulation target was pain (6/21, 28.6%) and lethargy or giddiness (5/21, 23.8%).ConclusionsThis follow-up study demonstrates the sustainability of our CPIP in improving early postoperative mobilization rates following major HPB surgery 1 year after implementation, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further large-scale, multi-institutional prospective studies should be conducted to assess compliance and determine its sustainability.

BackgroundCapnography is commonly used for nurse-administered procedural sedation. Distinguishing between capnography waveform abnormalities that signal the need for clinical intervention for an event and those that do not indicate the need for intervention is essential for the successful implementation of this technology into practice. It is possible that capnography alarm management may be improved by using machine learning to create a “smart alarm” that can alert clinicians to apneic events that are predicted to be prolonged.ObjectiveTo determine the accuracy of machine learning models for predicting at the 15-second time point if apnea will be prolonged (ie, apnea that persists for >30 seconds).MethodsA secondary analysis of an observational study was conducted. We selected several candidate models to evaluate, including a random forest model, generalized linear model (logistic regression), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, ridge regression, and the XGBoost model. Out-of-sample accuracy of the models was calculated using 10-fold cross-validation. The net benefit decision analytic measure was used to assist with deciding whether using the models in practice would lead to better outcomes on average than using the current default capnography alarm management strategies. The default strategies are the aggressive approach, in which an alarm is triggered after brief periods of apnea (typically 15 seconds) and the conservative approach, in which an alarm is triggered for only prolonged periods of apnea (typically >30 seconds).ResultsA total of 384 apneic events longer than 15 seconds were observed in 61 of the 102 patients (59.8%) who participated in the observational study. Nearly half of the apneic events (180/384, 46.9%) were prolonged. The random forest model performed the best in terms of discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66) and calibration. The net benefit associated with the random forest model exceeded that associated with the aggressive strategy but was lower than that associated with the conservative strategy.ConclusionsDecision curve analysis indicated that using a random forest model would lead to a better outcome for capnography alarm management than using an aggressive strategy in which alarms are triggered after 15 seconds of apnea. The model would not be superior to the conservative strategy in which alarms are only triggered after 30 seconds.

BackgroundMonitoring surgical recovery has traditionally been confined to metrics measurable within the hospital and clinic setting. However, commercially available mobile sensors are now capable of extending measurements into a patient’s home. As these sensors were developed for nonmedical applications, their clinical role has yet to be established. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the relationship between data generated by mobile sensors and postoperative outcomes.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to describe the current use of mobile sensors in the perioperative setting and the correlation between their data and clinical outcomes.MethodsA systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2019 was performed to identify studies of surgical patients monitored with mobile sensors. Sensors were considered if they collected patient metrics such as step count, temperature, or heart rate. Studies were included if patients underwent major surgery (≥1 inpatient postoperative day), patients were monitored using mobile sensors in the perioperative period, and the study reported postoperative outcomes (ie, complications and hospital readmission). For studies including step count, a pooled analysis of the step count per postoperative day was calculated for the complication and noncomplication cohorts using mean and a random-effects linear model. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool was used to assess study quality.ResultsFrom 2209 abstracts, we identified 11 studies for review. Reviewed studies consisted of either prospective observational cohorts (n=10) or randomized controlled trials (n=1). Activity monitors were the most widely used sensors (n=10), with an additional study measuring temperature, respiratory rate, and heart rate (n=1). Low step count was associated with worse postoperative outcomes. A median step count of around 1000 steps per postoperative day was associated with adverse surgical outcomes. Within the studies, there was heterogeneity between the type of surgery and type of reported postoperative outcome.ConclusionsDespite significant heterogeneity in the type of surgery and sensors, low step count was associated with worse postoperative outcomes across surgical specialties. Further studies and standardization are needed to assess the role of mobile sensors in postoperative care, but a threshold of approximately 1000 steps per postoperative day warrants further investigation.

BackgroundThe frequency and timing of assessing patient symptoms and discomfort during postoperative recovery are goals. Therefore, real-time recovery evaluation has been suggested to identify specific deficits in patient recovery.ObjectiveThis study aimed to psychometrically evaluate the Swedish Web Version of the Quality of Recovery (SwQoR) Scale adapted for patients undergoing local and peripheral nerve block (SwQoR-LA).MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a psychometric evaluation of 107 patients aged ≥18 years undergoing day surgery under local or peripheral nerve block anesthesia at 4 different day surgery departments in Sweden. The SwQoR-LA, available through a mobile app called Recovery Assessment by Phone Points (RAPP), was completed daily on postoperative days 1-7.ResultsSome evidence of construct validity was supported, and discriminant validity was found in 7 of 8 items related to general anesthesia. The internal consistency was acceptable (.87-.89), and the split-half reliability was 0.80-0.86. Cohen d effect size was 0.98, and the percentage of change from baseline was 43.4%. No floor nor ceiling effects were found.ConclusionsThe SwQoR-LA is valid, reliable, responsive, and clinically feasible for digital real-time recovery assessment of patient recovery to identify specific deficits in patient recovery and detect those patients who might benefit from a timely intervention.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02492191; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02492191International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009901

BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons reports 88,320 intraoperative needlestick injuries (NSIs) per year, resulting in US $376 to US $2456 in costs per NSI. Engineered sharps injury prevention (ESIP) devices protect against NSIs. To our knowledge, no study has been published to date to demonstrate clinical effectiveness of an intraoperative ESIP device. Operative Armour is a wearable arm cuff that can be donned during surgical closure to allow surgeons to keep a suture pack and sharps protection container on their forearm.ObjectiveWe characterize Operative Armour’s ESIP device effectiveness in a tertiary hospital, hypothesizing that this device will decrease NSI risk by decreasing behaviors associated with NSIs: needle passing and handling.MethodsA prospective case-control study was conducted with institutional review board quality improvement designation in which authors observed skin closures of plastic surgery procedures. To ensure accuracy, one surgeon was observed at a time. Control surgeries were purely observational; intervention cases involved surgeon use of the device during skin closure. Outcomes of interest included needle passing, needle handling, lost needles, and loaded waiting needles.ResultsSurgeons were observed in 50 control and 50 intervention cases. Operative Armour eliminated needle passing during skin closure. One NSI occurred in one control case; no NSIs were observed in intervention cases (P=.36). The mean number of loaded and unprotected waiting needles was also significantly decreased in the intervention group from 2.3 to 0.2 (P<.001). Furthermore, a multivariable linear regression established that Operative Armour significantly decreased the number of needle adjustments by hand per stitch observed (F4, 21.68=3.72; P=.01). In fact, needle adjustments by hand decreased overall (1 adjustment per 10 stitches vs 1 adjustment per 5 stitches, P=.004), and adjustments occurred half as frequently with use of Operative Armour in free flap reconstruction (1 adjustment per 10 stitches vs 1 adjustment per 5 stitches, P=.03) and a quarter as frequently in other breast reconstruction cases such as mastopexy (1 adjustment per 20 stitches vs 1 adjustment per 5 stitches, P=.002).ConclusionsOperative Armour effectively functions as an ESIP device by decreasing intraoperative needle passing and handling. Although sample size prohibits demonstrating a decrease in NSIs during observed cases, by decreasing behaviors that drive NSI risk, we anticipate an associated decrease in NSIs with use of the device.

BackgroundTelehealth is a disruptive modality that challenges the traditional model of having a clinician or patient physically present for an appointment. The benefit is that it offers the opportunity to redesign the way services are offered. For instance, a virtual health practitioner can provide videoconference consultations while being located anywhere in the world that has internet. A virtual health practitioner also obviates the issues of attracting a specialist medical workforce to rural areas, and allows the rural health service to control the specialist services that they offer.ObjectiveThe aim of this research was to evaluate the economic effects of 3 different models of care on rural and metropolitan hospital sites. The models of care examined were patient travel, telehealth using videoconferencing, and employment of a virtual health practitioner by a rural site.MethodsUsing retrospective activity data for 3 years, a return on investment (ROI) analysis was undertaken from the perspective of a rural site and metropolitan partner site using a telehealth orthopedic fracture clinic as an example. Further analysis was conducted to calculate the number of patients that would be required to attend the clinic in each model of care for the sites to break even.ResultsThe only service model that resulted in a positive ROI for the rural site over the 3-year period was the virtual health practitioner model. The breakeven analysis demonstrated that the rural site required the lowest number of patients to recoup costs in the virtual health practitioner model of care. The rural site was unable to recoup its costs within the travel model due to the lack of opportunity for reimbursement for services and the requirement to cover the cost of travel for patients.ConclusionsOur model demonstrated that rural health care providers can increase their ROI by employing a virtual health practitioner.

BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) readmissions have been shown to increase a patient’s in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS). Despite this, no methods have been set in place to prevent readmissions from occurring.ObjectiveThe aim of this literature review was to evaluate the impact of ICU readmission on patient outcomes and to evaluate the effect of using a risk stratification tool, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), on ICU readmissions.MethodsA database search was performed on PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. In the initial search, 2028 articles were retrieved; after inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 12 articles were ultimately used in this literature review.ResultsThis literature review found that patients readmitted to the ICU have an increased mortality rate and LOS at the hospital. The sample sizes in the reviewed studies ranged from 158 to 745,187 patients. Readmissions were most commonly associated with respiratory issues about 18% to 59% of the time. The NEWS has been shown to detect early clinical deterioration in a patient within 24 hours of transfer, with a 95% CI of 0.89 to 0.94 (P<.001), a sensitivity of 93.6% , and a specificity of 82.2%.ConclusionsICU readmissions are associated with worse patient outcomes, including hospital mortality and increased LOS. Without the use of an objective screening tool, the provider has been solely responsible for the decision of patient transfer. Assessment with the NEWS could be helpful in decreasing the frequency of inappropriate transfers and ultimately ICU readmission.

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of electronic health technologies provides unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to provide an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers, and disadvantages of the digital collection of qualitative electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs).MethodsWe performed a systematic review of articles retrieved from PubMED and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during all stages. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records, from which 32 met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant ePROM-related information was extracted from each study.ResultsResults were clustered as benefits and disadvantages. Reported benefits of ePROMs were greater patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, similar or faster completion time, higher data quality and response rates, and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Tablets were the most used ePROM modality (14/32, 44%), and, as a platform, Web-based systems were used the most (26/32, 81%). Potential disadvantages of ePROMs include privacy protection, a possible large initial financial investment, and exclusion of certain populations or the “digital divide.”ConclusionsIn conclusion, ePROMs offer many advantages over paper-based collection of patient-reported outcomes. Overall, ePROMs are preferred over paper-based methods, improve data quality, result in similar or faster completion time, decrease costs, and facilitate clinical decision making and symptom management. Disadvantages regarding ePROMs have been outlined, and suggestions are provided to overcome the barriers. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795

BackgroundThe implementation of computerized monitoring and prescription systems in intensive care has proven to be reliable in reducing the rate of medical error and increasing patient care time. They also showed a benefit in reducing the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, this benefit has been poorly studied, with conflicting results.ObjectiveThis study aimed to show the impact of computerization on the length of stay in ICUs.MethodsThis was a before-after retrospective observational study. All patients admitted in the surgical ICU at the Rouen University Hospital were included, from June 1, 2015, to June 1, 2016, for the before period and from August 1, 2016, to August 1, 2017, for the after period. The data were extracted from the hospitalization report and included the following: epidemiological data (age, sex, weight, height, and body mass index), reason for ICU admission, severity score at admission, length of stay and mortality in ICU, mortality in hospital, use of life support during the stay, and ICU readmission during the same hospital stay. The consumption of antibiotics, biological analyses, and the number of chest x-rays during the stay were also analyzed.ResultsA total of 1600 patients were included: 839 in the before period and 761 in the after period. Only the severity score Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was significantly higher in the postcomputerization period (38 [SD 20] vs 40 [SD 21]; P<.05). There was no significant difference in terms of length of stay in ICU, mortality, or readmission during the stay. There was a significant increase in the volume of prescribed biological analyses (5416 [5192-5956] biological exams prescribed in the period before Intellispace Critical Care and Anesthesia [ICCA] vs 6374 [6013-6986] biological exams prescribed in the period after ICCA; P=.002), with an increase in the total cost of biological analyses, to the detriment of hematological and biochemical blood tests. There was also a trend toward reduction in the average number of chest x-rays, but this was not significant (0.55 [SD 0.39] chest x-rays per day per patient before computerization vs 0.51 [SD 0.37] chest x-rays per day per patient after computerization; P=.05). On the other hand, there was a decrease in antibiotic prescribing in terms of cost per patient after the implementation of computerization (€149.50 [$164 USD] per patient before computerization vs €105.40 [$155 USD] per patient after computerization).ConclusionsImplementation of an intensive care information system at the Rouen University Hospital in June 2016 did not have an impact on reducing the length of stay.