Assessing Patient-Reported Experiences for In-Person and Telemedicine-Based Preoperative Evaluations.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed health care delivery through the rise of telehealth solutions. Though telemedicine-based care has been identified as safe and feasible in postoperative care, data on initial surgical consultations in the preoperative setting are lacking. We sought to compare patient characteristics, anticipated downstream care utilization, and patient-reported experiences (PREs) for in-person versus telemedicine-based care conducted for initial consultation encounters at a hernia and abdominal wall center. Methods: Patients evaluated at an abdominal wall reconstruction center from August 2021 to August 2022 were prospectively surveyed. Patient characteristics, anticipated downstream care utilization, and PREs were compared. Results: Of the 176 respondents, 50.6% (n = 89) utilized telemedicine-based care and had similar demographic and disease characteristics to those receiving in-person care. Telemedicine-based care saved a median of 47 min [interquartile range 20-112.5 min] of round-trip travel time per patient, with 10.1% of encounters resulting in supplemental in-person evaluation. A large proportion of telemedicine-based and in-person encounters resulted in recommendations for operative intervention, 38.2% versus 55.2%, respectively. Indirect costs of care were significantly lower for patients utilizing telemedicine-based services. Patient satisfaction related to encounters was non-inferior to in-person care. Overall, the majority of patients responded that they preferred future care to be delivered via telemedicine-based services, if offered. Conclusions: Preoperative telemedicine-based care was associated with significant cost-savings over in-person care related with comparable patient satisfaction. Health systems should continue to dedicate resources to optimizing and expanding perioperative telemedicine capabilities.

Bedside vs webside: Assessing patient-reported experiences for in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Though telemedicine has been identified as safe and feasible, data on patient reported experiences (PREs) are lacking. We sought to compare PREs between in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative care. METHODS: Patients evaluated from August-November 2021 were prospectively surveyed to assess experiences and satisfaction with care rendered during in-person and telemedicine-based encounters. Patient and hernia characteristics, encounter related plans, and PREs were compared between in-person and telemedicine-based care. RESULTS: Of 109 respondents (86% response rate), 55% (n = 60) utilized telemedicine-based perioperative care. Indirect costs were lower for patients using telemedicine-based services, including work absence (3% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), lost wages (0% vs. 14%, P = 0.003), and requirements for hotel accommodations (0% vs. 12%, P = 0.007). PREs related to telemedicine-based care were non-inferior to in-person care across all measured domains (P > 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine-based care yields significant cost-savings over in-person care with similar patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that systems should focus on optimization of perioperative telemedicine services.

Patient-performed at-home surgical drain removal is safe and feasible following hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, surgical drains are considered a relative contraindication to telemedicine-based postoperative care. We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of an at-home patient-performed surgical drain removal pilot program. METHODS: A prospective cohort study among patients who were discharged with surgical drains was performed. Patients discharged with drains were given the option for in-clinic, provider-performed removal, or at-home, patient-performed drain removal. Patient demographics, health characteristics, perioperative metrics, and operative outcomes were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 68 encounters with drain removal were included (at-home: 28%, n = 19; in-clinic: 72%, n = 49), with both groups having similar demographics, except for age (median age of telemedicine-based at-home: 50 vs in-clinic: 62 years, p = 0.03). Patients who opted into at-home, patient-performed drain removal were more likely to have drain removal occur earlier (9 vs 13 days for in-clinic, p < 0.001). In-clinic removal resulted in increased encounters with surgical nursing staff and increased travel time, with no significant difference in complication burden. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-performed at-home drain removal is safe and allows for more timely drain removal.

Post-Surgical Complications After Bladder Outlet Reducing Surgery: An Analysis of The FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database.

OBJECTIVE: To examine voluntary reports in the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, categorize complications and assign device-related causality with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and transurethral water vapor therapy (TWVT). METHODS: A review was performed using the terms "Urolift," "Rezum," and "transurethral resection of the prostate" between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2019. Duplicate and incomplete reports were excluded. The Gupta system was used to report complications and device related causality.1 Pearson's Chi-square analysis was performed to compare minor (Level 1) versus major (Levels 2-4) complications. RESULTS: A total of 548 events were examined. After removal of duplicates (n = 60), irrelevant reports (n=65), and incomplete information (n = 14), we included 409 events (74.6%). Of the 409 events, 214 were for TURP, 112 for TWVT, and 83 for PUL. In aggregate, 39.4% of events were minor/Level 1 (n=161/409). The proportion of subjects with Level 2-4 complications versus Level 1 complications was significantly higher for PUL than TURP or TWVT [X2 (2, N = 408) = 41.4023, P < .00001]. Device causality was attributable to device malfunction in 60.4% of cases (n=247/409). CONCLUSION: Device malfunction was noted in all groups and 39.4% of these were minor (Level 1). However, the majority of PUL reports noted a Level 3 or 4 complication (50.6%, 42/83), primarily bleeding related. Previous studies have not revealed significant risk of bleeding and suggests a discrepancy between study data and real-world experience that may alter patient counseling practices.