Comparing Digital Photography via Email Correspondence With Traditional Telephone Communication for Assessment of Postoperative Pediatric Urology Patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Postoperative concerns are commonly managed by a nurse practitioner (NP) via traditional telephone conversation (TTC). In recent years, electronic interaction, including digital photographs sent via email (PEC), has become an alternative, novel strategy to evaluate surgical site concerns. Its use may result in fewer unplanned clinic or emergency room (ER) visits as well as improve patient satisfaction. Herein, we present a pilot a study to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial comparing the effectiveness of PEC versus TTC in reducing the number of unplanned clinic and ER visits as well as improving patient experience. Materials and Methods Children < 18 years old at the time of surgery and within the 30-day postoperative period were recruited from June 2015 to January 2016 at a tertiary children’s hospital. Exclusion criteria were concerns occurring outside the 30-day postoperative period and inability/unwillingness to email photographs. Patients were allocated to PEC or TTC after initiating contact with the NP through an electronic centralized blocked randomization system. A standardized telephone script was used to gather relevant clinical data for both groups. These data informed a clinical plan, with those randomized to the PEC group sending digital photographs of the surgical site in addition to the traditional telephone call. Within 48 hours, families were sent a link to an electronic survey measuring patient experience using a validated questionnaire. Feasibility data on recruitment rates, compliance with sending photographs, and completing patient experience questionnaires were collected. Secondary outcomes included number of unplanned clinic/ER visits, number of follow-up phone calls, and patient experience scores. Results Of the 328 children who underwent urological procedures during the recruitment period, 215 (66%) consented to participate in the study. Of these, 42(13%) contacted the NP with postoperative concerns and were randomized. Two patients in the PEC group were excluded after randomization (one for contacting on Postoperative Day 31 and one for not sending photographs), resulting in 19 patients in the PEC group and 21 patients in the TTC group. Penile surgeries (hypospadias repair and circumcisions [43%]) were the most common procedures with postoperative concerns. Ninety-eight percent of the PEC patients were compliant in sending photographs. Overall, 98% of surveys were completed. Twice as many unplanned clinic visits were observed in the TTC group when compared with the PEC group (p = .28), despite a similar number of follow-up phone calls between groups (Table 1). Patient experience scores were also comparable in both groups, with families scoring high satisfaction with the experience regardless of the modality of communication. Conclusions A definitive trial examining the effectiveness of PEC versus TTC appears feasible and safe as seen by the high recruitment, photographic compliance, hospital visits, and survey completion rates in this pilot study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».