Patient Judgement of Change with Elective Surgery Correlates with Patient Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life

Validation of the postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire after emergency surgery and association with quality of life at three months

PURPOSE

The Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) tool, validated for measuring postoperative recovery following scheduled surgeries, has not been psychometrically assessed in emergency contexts. Moreover, the QoR-15's associations with long-term outcomes remain underexplored. This study aimed to confirm the validity and reliability of the QoR-15 following emergency surgery and assess its association with three-month postoperative quality of life.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study (August 2021-April 2022) on adult patients who underwent emergency surgery. The QoR-15 questionnaire was administered before surgery (H0) and at 24 hr (H24) and 48 hr (H48) after surgery. We examined the H24 score's associations with both the three-month quality of life, as assessed by the EQ-5D scale, and the number of days spent at home at 30 (DAH30) and 90 (DAH90) days.

RESULTS

Of the 375 included patients, 352 (94%) completed the QoR-15 at H24 and 338 (90%) were followed up at three months. The population represented the following diverse surgical specialties: orthopedic (51%), gastrointestinal (27%), urologic (13%), and others (9%). The QoR-15 questionnaire confirmed all psychometric qualities (internal consistency, reproducibility, responsiveness, acceptability, construct, and convergent validities) in the emergency context. The average minimum clinical difference was 8.0 at H24. There was an association between QoR-15 at H24 and the three-month quality of life (r = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14 to 0.34; P < 0.001), DAH30 (r = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; P < 0.001), and DAH90 (r = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.40; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The QoR-15 score is valid for measuring early postoperative recovery after emergency surgery. The H24 score significantly correlated with both the three-month quality of life and the number of days at home.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04845763); first submitted 11 April 2021.

The Widening Gap between the Digital Capability of the Care Workforce and Technology-Enabled Healthcare Delivery: A Nursing and Allied Health Analysis

There is a need to ensure that healthcare organisations enable their workforces to use digital methods in service delivery. This study aimed to evaluate the current level of digital understanding and ability in nursing, midwifery, and allied health workforces and identify some of the training requirements to improve digital literacy in these health professionals. Representatives from eight healthcare organizations in Victoria, Australia participated in focus groups. Three digital frameworks informed the focus group topic guide that sought to examine the barriers and enablers to adopting digital healthcare along with training requirements to improve digital literacy. Twenty-three participants self-rated digital knowledge and skills using Likert scales and attended the focus groups. Mid-range scores were given for digital ability in nursing, midwifery, and allied health professionals. Focus group participants expressed concern over the gap between their organizations’ adoption of digital methods relative to their digital ability, and there were concerns about cyber security. Participants also saw a need for the inclusion of consumers in digital design. Given the widening gap between digital innovation and health workforce digital capability, there is a need to accelerate digital literacy by rapidly deploying education and training and policies and procedures for digital service delivery.

The Voice of Patients Really Matters: Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences Measures to Assess Effectiveness of Home-Based Integrated Care-A Scoping Review of Practice

Background: The aim of the study is to analyze the prevalence of using patients’ reported outcomes measures and experiences (PROMs and PREMs) in relation to integrated care (IC). Material and methods: To select eligible studies (<10 years, full-text), PubMed was used. The general subject of the articles referring to the type of disease was indicated on the basis of a review of all full-text publications discussing the effectiveness of IC (N = 6518). The final search included MeSH headings related to outcomes measures and IC. Full-text screening resulted in including 73 articles (23 on COPD, 40 on diabetes/obesity and 10 on depression) with 93.391 participants. Results: Analysis indicated that authors used multiple outcome measures, with 54.8% of studies including at least one patient reported. PROMs were more often used than PREMs. Specific (disease or condition/dimension) outcome measures were reported more often than general, especially those dedicated to self-assessment of health in COPD and depression. PROMs and PREMs were most commonly used in studies from the USA and Netherlands. Conclusion: Using PROMS/PREMS is becoming more popular, although it is varied, both due to the place of research and type of disease.

Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Codesign strengthens partnerships between healthcare workers and patients. It also facilitates collaborations supporting the development, design and delivery of healthcare services. Prior rehabilitation reviews have focused mainly on the clinical and organisational outcomes of codesign with less focus on the lived experience of rehabilitation patients.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient experiences of codesigned hospital rehabilitation interventions.

DESIGN

Rapid review and evidence synthesis of the literature.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals.

RESULTS

4156 studies were screened, and 38 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies were included in the final rapid review. Five out of the seven studies involved neurological rehabilitation. All eligible studies used qualitative research methods. The main barriers to codesign were related to staffing and dedicated time allocated to face-to-face patient-therapist interactions. High-quality relationships between patients and their therapists were a facilitator of codesign. Thematic synthesis revealed that codesigned rehabilitation interventions can enable a meaningful experience for patients and facilitate tailoring of treatments to align with individual needs. Personalised rehabilitation increases patient involvement in rehabilitation planning, delivery and decision-making. It also promotes positive feelings of empowerment and hope.

CONCLUSION

This rapid review supports the implementation of codesigned rehabilitation interventions to improve patient experiences in hospitals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021264547.