A Novel Hospital-to-Home System for Children With Medical Complexities: Usability Testing Study.

BACKGROUND: Children with medical complexity (CMC) are a group of young people who have severe complex chronic conditions, substantial family-identified service needs, functional limitations, and high health care resource use. Technology-enabled hospital-to-home interventions designed to deliver comprehensive care in the home setting are needed to ease CMC family stress, provide proactive and comprehensive care to this fragile population, and avoid hospital admissions, where possible. OBJECTIVE: In this usability testing study, we aimed to assess areas of strength and opportunity within the DigiComp Kids system, a hospital-to-home intervention for CMC and their families and care providers. METHODS: Hospital-based clinicians, family members of medically complex children, and home-based clinicians participated in DigiComp Kids usability testing. Participants were recorded and tasked to think aloud while completing usability testing tasks. Participants were scored on the metrics of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, and the total usability score was calculated using the Single Usability Metric. Participants also provided insights into user experiences during the postusability testing interviews. RESULTS: A total of 15 participants (5 hospital-based clinicians, 6 family members, and 4 home-based clinicians) participated in DigiComp Kids usability testing. The participants were able to complete all assigned tasks independently. Error-free rates for tasks ranged from 58% to 100%; the average satisfaction rating across groups was ≥80%, as measured by the Single Ease Question. Task times of participants were variable compared with the task times of an expert DigiComp Kids user. Single Usability Metric scores ranged from 80.5% to 89.5%. In qualitative interviews, participants stressed the need to find the right fit between user needs and the effort required to use the system. Interviews also revealed that the value of the DigiComp Kids system was in its ability to create a digital bridge between hospital and home, enabling participants to foster and maintain connections across boundaries. CONCLUSIONS: Usability testing revealed strong scores across the groups. Insights gained include the importance of tailoring the implementation of the system to match individual user needs, streamlining key system features, and consideration of the meaning attached to system use by participants to allow for insight into system adoption and sustainment.

Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is common in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that may safely decrease such bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025. RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).

A Digital Self-management Program (Help to Overcome Problems Effectively) for People Living With Cancer: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: We present the results of a feasibility, randomized waitlist control group (CG) parallel design study with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants were randomized into an intervention group (IG) or a waitlist CG. The intervention was a 6-week digital self-management program, Help to Overcome Problems Effectively (HOPE), for people with cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the feasibility of a digitally delivered self-management program for people with cancer. This will inform the design of a definitive randomized controlled trial. In addition, a preliminary assessment of the impact of the HOPE program via secondary outcomes will be used to assess signals of efficacy in a trial context. METHODS: Participants were drawn from an opportunity sample, referred by Macmillan Cancer Support, and were invited via email to participate in the study (N=61). Primary outcomes were rates of recruitment, retention, follow-up, completion and adherence, sample size and effect size estimation, and assessment of progression criteria for a definitive trial. Secondary outcomes were self-report measures of participants' positive mental well-being, depression, anxiety, and patient activation (ie, confidence in managing their cancer). The intervention and data collection took place on the web. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 77% (47/61). A total of 41 participants completed the baseline questionnaires and were randomized to either the IG (n=21) or the waitlist CG (n=20). The retention rate (attending all program sessions) was greater than 50% (all: 21/41, 51%, IG: 10/21, 48%; and CG: 11/20, 55%). The follow-up rate (completing all questionnaires) was greater than 80% (all: 33/41, 80%; IG: 16/21, 76%; and CG: 17/20, 85%). The completion rate (attending ≥3 sessions and completing all questionnaires) was greater than 60% (all: 25/41, 61%; IG: 13/21, 62%; and CG: 12/20, 60%). Engagement data showed that participants viewed between half (5.1/10, 51%) and three-quarters (12.2/16, 76%) of the pages in each session. CONCLUSIONS: All progression criteria for a definitive trial were met, as supported by the primary outcome data. The IG showed improved postprogram scores on measures of positive mental well-being, depression, anxiety, and patient activation. A full-scale trial of the digital HOPE program for people with cancer will allow us to fully evaluate the efficacy of the intervention relative to a CG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN79623250; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79623250. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/24264.

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 8 acute care hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were randomised either to virtual care and RAM (n=451) or to standard care (n=454). 903 participants (99.8%) completed the 31 day follow-up. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group received a tablet computer and RAM technology that measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and body weight. For 30 days the participants took daily biophysical measurements and photographs of their wound and interacted with nurses virtually. Participants in the standard care group received post-hospital discharge management according to the centre's usual care. Patients, healthcare providers, and data collectors were aware of patients' group allocations. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to group allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up. The 12 secondary outcomes included acute hospital care, detection and correction of drug errors, and pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation. RESULTS: All 905 participants (mean age 63.1 years) were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised. Days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up were 29.7 in the virtual care group and 29.5 in the standard care group: relative risk 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.02); absolute difference 0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.5% to 0.9%). 99 participants (22.0%) in the virtual care group and 124 (27.3%) in the standard care group required acute hospital care: relative risk 0.80 (0.64 to 1.01); absolute difference 5.3% (-0.3% to 10.9%). More participants in the virtual care group than standard care group had a drug error detected (134 (29.7%) v 25 (5.5%); absolute difference 24.2%, 19.5% to 28.9%) and a drug error corrected (absolute difference 24.4%, 19.9% to 28.9%). Fewer participants in the virtual care group than standard care group reported pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation: absolute differences 13.9% (7.4% to 20.4%), 11.9% (5.1% to 18.7%), and 9.6% (2.9% to 16.3%), respectively. Beneficial effects proved substantially larger in centres with a higher rate of care escalation. CONCLUSION: Virtual care with RAM shows promise in improving outcomes important to patients and to optimal health system function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344665.

A Case Study of Two Emerging Nurse Leaders Specializing in Virtual Health during the COVID-19 Global Pandemic.

In the field of digital health research, nurse leaders have an opportunity to be integral to the design, implementation and evaluation of virtual care interventions. This case study details the experiences of two emerging nurse leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic in providing research and clinical leadership for a national virtual health trial. These nurse leaders trained and led a national team of 70 nurses across eight participating centres delivering the virtual care and remote monitoring intervention, using the normalization process theory. This case study presents a theoretically informed approach to training and leadership and discusses the experiences and lessons learned.

Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After nonelective (i.e., semiurgent, urgent and emergent) surgeries, patients discharged from hospitals are at risk of readmissions, emergency department visits or death. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we are undertaking the Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM) trial to determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) compared with standard care will increase the number of days adult patients remain alive at home after being discharged following nonelective surgery. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial in which 900 adults who are being discharged after nonelective surgery from 8 Canadian hospitals are randomly assigned to receive virtual care with RAM or standard care. Outcome adjudicators are masked to group allocations. Patients in the experimental group learn how to use the study's tablet computer and RAM technology, which will measure their vital signs. For 30 days, patients take daily biophysical measurements and complete a recovery survey. Patients interact with nurses via the cellular modem-enabled tablet, who escalate care to preassigned and available physicians if RAM measurements exceed predetermined thresholds, patients report symptoms, a medication error is identified or the nurses have concerns they cannot resolve. The primary outcome is number of days alive at home during the 30 days after randomization. INTERPRETATION: This trial will inform management of patients after discharge following surgery in the COVID-19 pandemic and offer insights for management of patients who undergo nonelective surgery in a nonpandemic setting. Knowledge dissemination will be supported through an online multimedia resource centre, policy briefs, presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications and media engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04344665.

Virtual Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: A Call for Evaluation.

The interplay of virtual care and cancer care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is unique and unprecedented. Patients with cancer are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and have worse outcomes than patients with COVID-19 who do not have cancer. Virtual care has been introduced quickly and extemporaneously in cancer treatment centers worldwide to maintain COVID-19-free zones. The outbreak of COVID-19 in a cancer center could have devastating consequences. The virtual care intervention that was first used in our cancer center, as well as many others, was a landline telephone in an office or clinic that connected a clinician with a patient. There is a lack of virtual care evaluation from the perspectives of patients and oncology health care providers. A number of factors for assessing oncology care delivered through a virtual care intervention have been described, including patient rapport, frailty, delicate conversations, team-based care, resident education, patient safety, technical effectiveness, privacy, operational effectiveness, and resource utilization. These factors are organized according to the National Quality Forum framework for the assessment of telehealth in oncology. This includes the following 4 domains of assessing outcomes: experience, access to care, effectiveness, and financial impact or cost. In terms of virtual care and oncology, the pandemic has opened the door to change. The lessons learned during the initial period of the pandemic have given rise to opportunities for the evolution of long-term virtual care. The opportunity to evaluate and improve virtual care should be seized upon.

A Digital Program (Hope) for People Living With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 lockdown period in the United Kingdom that began on March 23, 2020, more than a quarter of a million people with cancer reported worsening mental health. Help to Overcome Problems Effectively (Hope) is a self-management program for people with cancer, designed to provide support for distress, unmet needs, and poor psychological health. In light of social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, digital delivery of the Hope Programme has become ever more vital for people with cancer. Previous pre-post studies of the digital Hope Programme have found reduced anxiety and depression and improved well-being for people with cancer. However, evaluation of this evidence has been limited by the lack of a control group in these previous studies. OBJECTIVE: We now present a protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the digital Hope Programme for people with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Primary outcomes will be recruitment, dropout, and adherence rates, and estimations of sample and effect size. To detect signals of efficacy, secondary outcomes will be participant mental health and well-being. METHODS: Participants will be recruited by Macmillan Cancer Support (MCS) through their social media networks. The study will employ a feasibility wait-list randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, with people with cancer being randomized to join the digital Hope Programme immediately (intervention group [IG]) or join a 6-week waiting list (wait-list control group [WLCG]) with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants will complete digital measures of depression, anxiety, mental well-being, and confidence in managing their own health. Online questionnaires will be administered preprogram and 6 weeks postprogram. RESULTS: All people who had requested access to the Hope Programme from MCS (N=61) will be invited to participate in the trial. Baseline data collection commenced in April 2020, and the Hope Programme began for the IG in May 2020 and for the WLCG in June 2020. Postprogram data collection was completed by the end of August 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study will provide data to inform the design of a future definitive trial. Wider-scale provision of the digital Hope Programme has potential to improve the lives of thousands of people with cancer and reduce the burden on health care providers during these unprecedented times. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN79623250; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79623250. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24264.