Enhancing Quadruple Health Outcomes After Thoracic Surgery: Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Using Digital Home Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical recovery after hospital discharge often presents challenges for patients and caregivers. Postoperative complications and poorly managed pain at home can lead to unexpected visits to the emergency department (ED) and readmission to the hospital. Digital home monitoring (DHM) may improve postoperative care compared to standard methods. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess DHM's effectiveness following thoracic surgical procedures compared to standard care. METHODS: We conducted a 2-arm parallel-group pilot RCT at a single tertiary care center. Adult patients undergoing thoracic surgical procedures were randomized 1:1 into 2 groups: the DHM group and the standard of care (control group). We adhered to the intention-to-treat analysis principle. The primary outcome was predetermined RCT feasibility criteria. The trial would be feasible if more than 75% of trial recruitment, protocol adherence, and data collection were achieved. Secondary outcomes included 30-day ED visit rates, 30-day readmission rates, postoperative complications, length of stay, postdischarge 30-day opioid consumption, 30-day quality of recovery, patient-program satisfaction, caregiver satisfaction, health care provider satisfaction, and cost per case. RESULTS: All RCT feasibility criteria were met. The trial recruitment rate was 87.9% (95% CI 79.4%-93.8%). Protocol adherence and outcome data collection rates were 96.3% (95% CI 89.4%-99.2%) and 98.7% (95% CI 92.9%-99.9%), respectively. In total, 80 patients were randomized, with 40 (50%) in the DHM group and 40 (50%) in the control group. Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. The DHM group had fewer unplanned ED visits (2.7% vs 20.5%; P=.02), fewer unplanned admission rates (0% vs 7.6%; P=.24), lower rates of postoperative complications (20% vs 47.5%, P=.01) shorter hospital stays (4.0 vs 6.9 days; P=.05), but more opioid consumption (111.6, SD 110.9) vs 74.3, SD 71.9 mg morphine equivalents; P=.08) compared to the control group. DHM also resulted in shorter ED visit times (130, SD 0 vs 1048, SD 1093 minutes; P=.48) and lower cost per case (CAD $12,145 [US $ 8436.34], SD CAD $8779 [US $ 6098.20] vs CAD $17,247 [US $11,980.37], SD CAD $15,313 [US $10,636.95]; P=.07). The quality of recovery scores was clinically significantly better than the controls (185.4, SD 2.6 vs 178.3, SD 3.3; P<.001). All 37 patients who completed the intervention answered the program satisfaction survey questionnaires (100%; 95% CI 90.5%-100%). Only 36 out of 80 caregivers responded to the caregiver satisfaction questionnaires at the end of the fourth week post hospital discharge (47.7%; 95% CI 35.7%-59.1%). Health care providers reported a 100% satisfaction rate. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot RCT demonstrates the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial to assess DHM's efficacy in improving postoperative care following thoracic surgery. DHM shows promise for enhancing continuity of care and warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04340960; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04340960.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".