ABSTRACT
Objectives: To evaluate the usability and effectiveness of a digital application for wound care from a clinician-and-patient user perspective. Methods: A quasi-experimental design was conducted in four settings in an Australian health service from July to December 2019 to October 2020. Owing to the coronavirus disease pandemic, the study paused in March 2020 but then restarted immediately after 3 weeks. Data were collected from patients in the standard group (n = 166, 243 wounds), and intervention group (n = 124, 184 wounds). Clinicians participated in a survey (n = 10) and focus group interviews (n = 13) and patients were interviewed (n = 4). Wound documentation data were analysed descriptively. Interviews were thematically analysed. Results: Positive evaluations identified improvements such as instantaneous objective wound assessment, shared wound plans, increased patient adherence and enhanced efficiency in providing virtual care. Compared to the standard group, wound documentation in the intervention group improved significantly (more than two items documented 24% versus 70%, p < .001). During the intervention, 101 out of 132 wounds improved (mean wound size reduction = 53.99 %). The travel-related fuel cost saved for a patient living in a rural area was on average $72.90. Conclusions: The digital application provided real-time wound data with an interface for communication between the patient and clinician and clinicians in a hospital, community, and outpatient setting in a variety of settings. The use of the application facilitated remote patient monitoring, and reduced patient travel time, while maintaining optimal wound care.
ABSTRACT
Wound documentation is integral to effective wound care, health data coding and facilitating continuity of care. This study evaluated the usability and effectiveness of an artificial intelligence application for wound assessment and management from a clinician-and-patient user perspective. A quasi-experimental design was conducted in four settings in an Australian health service. Data were collected from patients in the standard group (n = 166, 243 wounds) and intervention group (n = 124, 184 wounds), at baseline and post-intervention. Clinicians participated in a survey (n = 10) and focus group interviews (n = 13) and patients were interviewed (n = 4). Wound documentation data were analysed descriptively, and bivariate statistics were used to determine between-group differences. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted. Compared with the standard group, wound documentation in the intervention group improved significantly (more than two items documented 24% vs 70%, P < .001). During the intervention, 101 out of 132 wounds improved (mean wound size reduction = 53.99%). Positive evaluations identified improvements such as instantaneous objective wound assessment, shared wound plans, increased patient adherence and enhanced efficiency in providing virtual care. The use of the application facilitated remote patient monitoring and reduced patient travel time while maintaining optimal wound care.