Key result
The DREAMPath study is a protocol to evaluate patient compliance with a multidevice remote monitoring kit for 30 days following discharge after major surgery, with no results reported yet.
Why the study?
More than 20% of patients are readmitted after major surgery, and postdischarge monitoring using digital technologies could detect adverse events at home, but compliance with multidevice remote monitoring needed evaluation.
Does a multidevice remote monitoring kit achieve patient compliance in the first 30 days following discharge after major surgery?
Cohort (n=30)
No
Does a multidevice remote monitoring kit achieve patient compliance in the first 30 days following discharge after major surgery?
The DREAMPath study protocol outlines a prospective observational study to assess the feasibility and patient compliance of remote monitoring using wearable devices for 30 days following discharge after major surgery.
BACKGROUND The incidence of major surgery is on the rise globally, and more than 20% of patients are readmitted to hospital following discharge from hospital. During their hospital stay, patients are monitored for early detection of clinical deterioration, which includes regularly measuring physiological parameters such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, and pulse oximetry. This monitoring ceases upon hospital discharge, as patients are deemed clinically stable. Monitoring after discharge is relevant to detect adverse events occurring in the home setting and can be made possible through the development of digital technologies and mobile networks. Smartwatches and other technological devices allow patients to self-measure physiological parameters in the home setting, and Bluetooth connectivity can facilitate the automatic collection and transfer of this data to a secure server with minimal input from the patient. OBJECTIVE This paper presents the protocol for the DREAMPath (Domiciliary Recovery After Medicalization Pathway) study, which aims to measure compliance with a multidevice remote monitoring kit after discharge from hospital following major surgery. METHODS DREAMPath is a single-center, prospective, observational, cohort study, comprising 30 patients undergoing major intracavity surgery. The primary outcome is to assess patient compliance with wearable and interactive smart technology in the first 30 days following discharge from hospital after major surgery. Secondary outcomes will explore the relation between unplanned health care events and physiological data collected in the study, as well as to explore a similar relationship with daily patient-reported outcome measures (Quality of Recovery–15 score). Secondary outcomes will be analyzed using appropriate regression methods. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing data will also be collected to assess correlations with wearable device data. RESULTS Recruitment was halted due to COVID-19 restrictions and will progress once research staff are back from redeployment. We expect that the study will be completed in the first quarter of 2022. CONCLUSIONS Digital health solutions have been recently made possible due to technological advances, but urgency in rollout has been expedited due to COVID-19. The DREAMPath study will inform readers about the feasibility of remote monitoring for a patient group that is at an increased risk of acute deterioration. CLINICALTRIAL ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62293620; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN62293620 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/30638
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khetrapal et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Major intracavity surgery (n=30). Multidevice remote monitoring kit was evaluated on Patient compliance with wearable and interactive smart technology in the first 30 days following discharge from hospital after major surgery. The DREAMPath study is a protocol to evaluate patient compliance with a multidevice remote monitoring kit for 30 days following discharge after major surgery, with no results reported yet.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: