Exploring patient perspectives on telemedicine monitoring within the operating room.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems and telemedicine for remote monitoring can together support clinicians' intraoperative decision-making and management of surgical patients' care. However, there has been limited investigation on patient perspectives about advanced health information technology use in intraoperative settings, especially an electronic OR (eOR) for remote monitoring and management of surgical patients. PURPOSE: Our study objectives were: (1) to identify participant-rated items contributing to patient attitudes, beliefs, and level of comfort with eOR monitoring; and (2) to highlight barriers and facilitators to eOR use. METHODS: We surveyed 324 individuals representing surgical patients across the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online platform supporting internet-based work. The structured survey questions examined the level of agreement and comfort with eOR for remote patient monitoring. We calculated descriptive statistics for demographic variables and performed a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test to assess whether participants were more comfortable with familiar clinicians from local hospitals or health systems monitoring their health and safety status during surgery than clinicians from hospitals or health systems in other regions or countries. We also analyzed open-ended survey responses using a thematic approach informed by an eight-dimensional socio-technical model. RESULTS: Participants' average age was 34.07 (SD = 10.11). Most were white (80.9%), male (57.1%), and had a high school degree or more (88.3%). Participants reported a higher level of comfort with clinicians they knew monitoring their health and safety than clinicians they did not know, even within the same healthcare system (z = -4.012, p < .001). They reported significantly higher comfort levels with clinicians within the same hospital or health system in the United States than those in a different country (z = -10.230, p < .001). Facilitators and barriers to eOR remote monitoring were prevalent across four socio-technical dimensions: 1) organizational policies, procedures, environment, and culture; 2) people; 3) workflow and communication; and 4) hardware and software. Facilitators to eOR use included perceptions of improved patient safety through a safeguard system and perceptions of streamlined care. Barriers included fears of incorrect eOR patient assessments, decision-making conflicts between care teams, and technological malfunctions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants expressed significant support for intraoperative telemedicine use and greater comfort with local telemedicine systems instead of long-distance telemedicine systems. Reservations centered on organizational policies, procedures, environment, culture; people; workflow and communication; and hardware and software. To improve the buy-in and acceptability of remote monitoring by an eOR team, we offer a few evidence-based guidelines applicable to telemedicine use within the context of OR workflow. Guidelines include backup plans for technical challenges, rigid care, and privacy standards, and patient education to increase understanding of telemedicine's potential to improve patient care.

Anesthesiology Control Tower-Feasibility Assessment to Support Translation (ACTFAST): Mixed-Methods Study of a Novel Telemedicine-Based Support System for the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to improve patient outcomes, major morbidity and mortality remain common after surgery. Health information technologies that provide decision support for clinicians might improve perioperative and postoperative patient care. Evaluating the usability of these technologies and barriers to their implementation can facilitate their acceptance within health systems. OBJECTIVE: This manuscript describes usability testing and refinement of an innovative telemedicine-based clinical support system, the Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT). It also reports stakeholders' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to implementation of the intervention. METHODS: Three phases of testing were conducted in an iterative manner. Phase 1 testing employed a think-aloud protocol analysis to identify surface-level usability problems with individual software components of the ACT and its structure. Phase 2 testing involved an extended qualitative and quantitative real-world usability analysis. Phase 3 sought to identify major barriers and facilitators to implementation of the ACT through semistructured interviews with key stakeholders. RESULTS: Phase 1 and phase 2 usability testing sessions identified numerous usability problems with the software components of the ACT. The ACT platform was revised in seven iterations in response to these usability concerns. Initial satisfaction with the ACT, as measured by standardized instruments, was below commonly accepted cutoffs for these measures. Satisfaction improved to acceptable levels over the course of revision and testing. A number of barriers to implementation were also identified and addressed during the refinement of the ACT intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The ACT model can improve the standard of perioperative anesthesia care. Through our thorough and iterative usability testing process and stakeholder assessment of barriers and facilitators, we enhanced the acceptability of this novel technology and improved our ability to implement this innovation into routine practice. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s40814-018-0233-4.