Electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring in patients recovering from ambulatory minimally invasive gynecologic surgery: A prospective pilot study Journal Article


Authors: Zivanovic, O.; Chen, L. Y.; Vickers, A.; Straubhar, A.; Baser, R.; Veith, M.; Aiken, N.; Carter, J.; Curran, K.; Simon, B.; Mueller, J.; Jewell, E.; Chi, D. S.; Sonoda, Y.; Abu-Rustum, N. R.; Leitao, M. M. Jr
Article Title: Electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring in patients recovering from ambulatory minimally invasive gynecologic surgery: A prospective pilot study
Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of an electronic symptom-tracking platform for patients recovering from ambulatory surgery. Method: We assessed user response to an electronic system designed to self-report symptoms. Endpoints included compliance, postoperative symptoms, patient satisfaction. An 8-item symptom inventory (pain, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, fever, swelling, discharge, redness) was developed and made available on postoperative days (POD) 2–6. Responses exceeding defined thresholds of severity triggered alerts to healthcare providers. Symptoms, alerts, actions taken, urgent care center (UCC) visits, hospital admissions were tracked until POD 30. Patient satisfaction was evaluated on POD 7. A patient was defined as “responder” if at least 5/8 items on at least 3 PODs were completed. The assessment method was deemed successful if 64/100 patients responded. Results: 97/102 patients were evaluable; 65 met “responder” criteria (67% responder rate; 95% CI 57–76%). 321 surveys were completed (median 4/patient), 248 (77%) in ≤2 min. Involving caregivers and allowing additional symptom-reporting improved the responder rate to 72% (95% CI 58–84%). Most commonly-reported moderate, severe, very severe symptoms were pain, nausea, swelling; 71% reported moderate to very severe pain on POD 2. Phone calls and adjustment of medications adequately addressed most symptoms. Two patients (2%) presented at UCC before, 6 (6%) after, POD 6; 1 (1%) was admitted. Most agreed or strongly agreed that electronic symptom-tracking was helpful, easy to use, and would recommend it to others. Conclusion: Electronic symptom-tracking is feasible for patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic cancer surgery. Symptom burden is high in the early postoperative period. Addressing patient-reported symptoms in a timely, automated manner may prevent severe downstream adverse events, reduce UCC visits and admission rates, and improve outcomes. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: adult; aged; patient satisfaction; antibiotic agent; postoperative care; hysterectomy; laparoscopic surgery; prospective study; salpingooophorectomy; ovary cancer; breast cancer; nausea; vomiting; clinical assessment; patient monitoring; breast reconstruction; self report; dyspnea; fever; pilot study; clinical evaluation; patient compliance; minimally invasive surgery; caregiver; hospital admission; feedback system; hospital readmission; patient-reported outcomes; uterus cancer; gynecologic surgery; postoperative pain; upper respiratory tract infection; skin redness; hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; uterine cervix dysplasia; swelling; ambulatory surgery; leiomyoma; endometrium hyperplasia; patient-reported outcome; human; female; priority journal; article; symptom assessment; robot assisted surgery; electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring
Journal Title: Gynecologic Oncology
Volume: 159
Issue: 1
ISSN: 0090-8258
Publisher: Elsevier Inc.  
Date Published: 2020-10-01
Start Page: 187
End Page: 194
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.07.004
PUBMED: 32718730
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC7380930
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 2 November 2020 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Raymond E Baser
    133 Baser
  2. Elizabeth Jewell
    131 Jewell
  3. Dennis S Chi
    707 Chi
  4. Yukio Sonoda
    472 Sonoda
  5. Mario Leitao
    575 Leitao
  6. Oliver Zivanovic
    291 Zivanovic
  7. Andrew J Vickers
    882 Vickers
  8. Jeanne Carter
    159 Carter
  9. Ling Yun Chen
    23 Chen
  10. Jennifer Jean Mueller
    186 Mueller
  11. Brett Andrew Simon
    50 Simon
  12. Mitchell W. Veith
    3 Veith
  13. William Nathan Aiken
    2 Aiken
  14. Katherine Grace Curran
    3 Curran