MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2977495381 · doi:10.2196/15197

Developing and Implementing a Digital Navigation Program to Improve Outcomes for Medicare Bundle Patients Undergoing Joint Replacement Surgery

2019· article· en· W2977495381 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason Rogers, Farah Fasihuddin, Morgan Black, R. K. Kann, Shelly Mei, J. Fred McLaughlin, Ashish Atreja

Notice bibliographique

RevueIproceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésJoint replacementMedicineHealth careOrthopedic surgeryMedical emergencyNursingArthroplastySurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Evidence-based patient education and consistent, timely communication is key to ensuring good outcomes among joint replacement patients. Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) participates in the mandatory CMS bundle for comprehensive joint replacement (CJR). MSH’s bundled payment strategy focuses on the development of a standardized model of care, built around evidence-based best practices to achieve the triple aims of strengthening population health while controlling cost and improving the quality of care. MSH launched a comprehensive digital navigation program (DNP) to guide joint replacement patients and their caregivers through pre-surgical preparation and recovery. Objective The objective was to improve the quality of care for joint replacement patients through creation of a digital navigation program specifically tailored to Medicare patients (age 65+) across the continuum of care. Methods Mount Sinai App Lab, in collaboration with the Department of Orthopedics, developed three digital therapeutic modules that were delivered through the RxUniverse Digital Medicine platform (Rx.Health, NY). These automated messages, programmed to send at specific times, included exercise instructions, medication reminders, and suggestions for how to prepare the home for optimal recovery. Messages specifically targeted key patient outcomes: length of stay, readmissions, ambulation on postoperative day 0, and discharge disposition. Staff “prescribed” each module to patients to ensure that engagement aligned with their process of care. Results Clinicians, patients, and their caregivers were receptive to the DNP. Patients showed a high rate of engagement, clicking links to educational content 873 times, and patients called their case manager or surgeon’s office to clarify their next steps when prompted. After 9 months, clinical outcomes for the digital navigation program were compared to other Medicare patients who had not received it. DNP patients had significantly shorter length of stay than their peers (2.81 vs 4.31 days). They also had a lower readmission rate (1.9% vs 2.9%) as well as a higher rate of discharge to home (87.8% vs 64.3%) and were more likely to ambulate on the day of surgery (47.9% vs 33.3%). Twenty patients responded to an end-of-program survey about their experience; 18 patients (90%) agreed that the program was helpful with the process of their total joint replacement surgery, 2 patients neither agreed nor disagreed (10%), and 0 patients disagreed. When asked about their satisfaction with the message volume, 19 patients answered “yes, this was the perfect number,” (95%) and 1 patient answered “no, I want fewer messages” (5%). Patient qualitative feedback was very positive. Patients reported, “Texts reassured me and helped me along with my progress and recovery,” and “Good support. Thank you.” A third said, “The texting program serves as a great reminder as what to do and when.” Conclusions The CJR DNP provided a direct, automated channel to educate and support patients at each stage of care. It demonstrated that digital navigation technology can be used even among non-digital native populations. It resulted in a significantly reduced length of stay and hospital readmissions among participating patients. Next steps include scaling the program across the health system and adding Spanish-language support. Similar programs are now being implemented for other surgical and disease use cases.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,378
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,552

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,410
Écart entre enseignants0,372 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIproceedingsMême sujetInterprofessional Education and CollaborationTravaux en français237 207