Applying User-Centered Design Methods to the Development of an mHealth Application for Use in the Hospital Setting by Patients and Care Partners.

INTRODUCTION: Developing an optimized and user-friendly mHealth application for patients and family members in the hospital environment presents unique challenges given the diverse patient population and patients' various states of well-being. OBJECTIVE: This article describes user-centered design methods and results for developing the patient and family facing user interface and functionality of MySafeCare, a safety reporting tool for hospitalized patients and their family members. METHODS: Individual and group usability sessions were conducted with specific testing scenarios for participants to follow to test the usability and functionality of the tool. Participants included patients, family members, and Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) members. Engagement rounds were also conducted on study units and lessons learned provided additional information to the usability work. Usability results were aligned with Nielsen's Usability Heuristics. RESULTS: Eleven patients and family members and 25 PFAC members participated in usability testing and over 250 patients and family members were engaged during research team rounding. Specific themes resulting from the usability testing sessions influenced the changes made to the user interface design, workflow functionality, and terminology. CONCLUSION: User-centered design should focus on workflow functionality, terminology, and user interface issues for mHealth applications. These themes illustrated issues aligned with four of Nielsen's Usability Heuristics: match between system and the real world, consistency and standards, flexibility and efficiency of use, and aesthetic and minimalist design. We identified workflow and terminology issues that may be specific to the use of an mHealth application focused on safety and used by hospitalized patients and their families.

Estimated annual health care expenditures in individuals with peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical impact of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is well characterized and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Health care-related expenditures among individuals with PAD, particularly for patients, are not well described. METHODS: Health care-related expenditure data from the 2011 to 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were analyzed for individuals with a diagnosis of PAD compared with U.S. adults 40 years of age and older. Weighted average annual expenditures were estimated using a multivariable generalized linear model. Subanalyses were also performed for out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures by insurance type. RESULTS: Adjusted for age, gender, and race, individuals with a diagnosis of PAD (weighted n = 640,098) had significantly higher average annual health care-related expenditures compared with the U.S. adult population as a whole (weighted n = 148,387,362). Average annual expenditures per individual for patients with PAD were $11,553 (95% confidence interval [CI], $8137-$14,968) compared with only $4219 (95% CI, $4064-$4375; P < .001) for those without. Expenditures were driven by increased prescription medication expenditures as well as by expenditures for inpatient care, outpatient hospital-based care, and outpatient office-based care. Individuals with PAD had significantly higher OOP prescription medication expenditures ($386 [95% CI, $258-$515] vs $192 [95% CI, $183-$202]; P = .003), which varied by insurance type, ranging from $179 (95% CI, $70-$288) for those with Medicare to $1196 (95% CI, $106-$2244) for those without insurance, although this difference did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a diagnosis of PAD have higher health care-related expenditures and OOP expenses compared with other US adults. These expenditures compound lost wages, care by family members, and lost opportunity costs, increasing the burden carried by patients with PAD.

Comparison of risk factors for length of stay and readmission following lower extremity bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Recent initiatives to improve health care quality have focused attention on length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates for surgical patients, yet these two outcomes may be inversely related. This study was designed to elucidate the risk factors for both outcomes and to clarify the relationship between them in patients undergoing lower extremity bypass (LEB). METHODS: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) patients who underwent LEB were identified from the 2007-2010 California State Inpatient Database. LOS and risk factors were analyzed using Poisson regression. Risk factors for 30-day readmission were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 6307 patients who underwent LEB, and 1291 (20%) were readmitted. The average index LOS was 8.3 days for those who were readmitted and 5.5 days for those who were not (P < .0001) and was an independent risk factor for 30-day readmission. The significant factors with the largest effect estimates for increased LOS reflected disease severity and postoperative complications: emergency department admission; advanced PAD; postoperative pneumonia, respiratory failure, urinary tract infection, wound/graft infection, graft complication, and discharge to a nursing facility. Independent predictors of readmission, other than LOS, reflected underlying patient factors: advanced PAD, chronic lung disease, diabetes, renal failure, postoperative congestive heart failure, and discharge status. Age, Medicaid or private insurance, and low income were protective. Of the 1291 readmissions, 453 (35%) were for definitive complications. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing LEB, LOS is primarily associated with the occurrence of postoperative complications, whereas 30-day readmission is largely explained by underlying patient illness. Additionally, increased LOS is an independent risk factor for readmission. These findings suggest that efforts to reduce both LOS and readmission will be complementary. Furthermore, they support the notion that both LOS and 30-day readmission rates should be risk-adjusted.

Health-related quality-of-life outcomes after open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms is a safe alternative to open aneurysm repair (OAR) in selected patients. The aim of this study was to compare the health-related quality-of-life (HR-QoL) outcomes of patients following EVAR and OAR. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library identified five randomized trials that reported on HR-QoL in EVAR and OAR for elective management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. No consistent HR-QOL instrument was used among the studies. A meta-analysis was performed on the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) HR-QoL results. RESULTS: SF-36 general health scores were higher for EVAR at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. SF-36 physical functioning scores were higher for EVAR at 6 months but this advantage was lost at 12 months. In addition, SF-36 social functioning scores were higher for EVAR at 12 months. SF-36 component summary scores were not significantly different. EVAR was associated with a better EQ-5D score at 3, 6, and 12 months, but not at 24 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR was associated with better HR-QoL in some domains up to 12 months postoperatively. There is insufficient data to demonstrate a HR-QoL advantage beyond 12 months. More studies are required to examine any long-term HR-QoL advantages for either intervention.

Comparing Preoperative Targets to Failure-to-Rescue for Surgical Mortality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Failure-to-rescue (FTR or death after postoperative complication) is thought to explain surgical mortality excesses across hospitals, and FTR is an emerging performance measure and target for quality improvement. We compared the FTR population to preoperatively identifiable subpopulations for their potential to close the mortality gap between lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing small bowel resection, pancreatectomy, colorectal resection, open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, lower extremity arterial bypass, and nephrectomy were identified in the 2007 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals were defined using risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality quintiles. Five target subpopulations were established a priori: the FTR population, predicted high-mortality risk (predicted highest-risk quintile), emergency surgery, elderly (>75 years old), and diabetic patients. RESULTS: Across the lowest mortality quintile (n=282 hospitals, 56,893 patients) and highest-mortality quintile (282 hospitals, 45,784 patients), respectively, the size of target subpopulations varied only for the FTR population (20.2% vs 22.4%, p=0.002) but not for other subpopulations. Variation in mortality rates across lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals was greatest for the high-mortality risk (7.5% vs 20.2%, p<0.0001) and FTR subpopulations (7.8% vs 18.9%, p<0.0001). The FTR and high-risk populations had comparable sensitivity (81% and 75%) and positive predictive value (19% and 20%, respectively) for mortality. In Monte Carlo simulations, the mortality gap between the lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals was reduced by nearly 75% when targeting the FTR population or the high-risk population, 78% for the emergency surgery population, but less for elderly (51%) and diabetic (17%) populations. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively identifiable patients with high estimated mortality risk may be preferable to the FTR population as a target for surgical mortality reduction.