It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Remote digital postoperative wound monitoring provides an opportunity to strengthen postoperative community care and minimise the burden of surgical-site infection (SSI). This study aimed to pilot a remote digital postoperative wound monitoring service and evaluate the readiness for implementation in routine clinical practice. This was a single-arm pilot implementational study of remote digital postoperative wound monitoring across two tertiary care hospitals in the UK (IDEAL stage 2b, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05069103). Adults undergoing abdominal surgery were recruited and received a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool for 30-days postoperatively. Patients received 30-day postoperative follow-up, including the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). A thematic mixed-methods approach was used, according to the WHO framework for monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions. 200 patients were enroled, of whom 115 (57.5%) underwent emergency surgical procedures. Overall, the 30-day SSI rate was 16.5% (n = 33/200), with 72.7% (n = 24) diagnosed post-discharge. Usage of the intervention was 83.0% (n = 166/200), with subsequently 74.1% (n = 123/166) TUQ completion. There were no issues reported with feasibility of the technology, with the reliability (3.87, 95% CI: 3.73–4.00) and quality of the interface rated highly (4.18, 95%: 4.06–4.30). Patient acceptance was similarly high with regards to ease of use (4.51, 95% CI: 4.41–4.62), satisfaction (4.27, 95% CI: 4.13–4.41), and usefulness (4.07, 95% CI: 3.92–4.23). Despite the desire for more frequent and personalised interactions, the majority viewed the intervention as providing meaningful benefit over routine postoperative care. Remote digital postoperative wound monitoring successfully demonstrated readiness for implementation with regards to the technology, usability, and healthcare process improvement.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 University of Edinburgh, Department of Clinical Surgery, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988); University of Edinburgh, Centre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988)
2 Western General Hospital, Colorectal Unit, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.417068.c) (ISNI:0000 0004 0624 9907)
3 University of Edinburgh, Department of Clinical Surgery, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988)
4 University of Edinburgh, Centre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988)