The Use of Videoconferencing for Monitoring of Patients Post Urologic Surgery

August 6, 2019 updated by: Manish Vira, Northwell Health
Our study would be the first randomized study investigating the use of video conferencing via tablet computers versus traditional bedside rounding and its effect on clinical data such as length of stay and complications as well as patient satisfaction. As technology improves, medicine has an obligation to incorporate this technology to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If telerounding is proven to not change outcomes or patient satisfaction, it saves time for the physician during office hours to see more patients or be productive in other ways. Telerounding could be applied in remote areas with a dearth of specialists, allowing these specialists' expertise to reach areas it could not before.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

As the healthcare system in America is evolving, doctors are becoming hard-pressed to see and treat more patients in the same amount of time. Over the past century, different forms of "telemedicine" have allowed doctors to treat patients from a distance, in hopes of increasing access to medical care. Several studies have evaluated the utility of telemedicine in the ICU setting, namely using video-conferencing technology to allow ICU attending physicians to monitor their patients with audio and video media more closely. A prospective, step-wedge study by Lily showed that the use of telemedicine reduced adjusted odds mortality and length of stay in the ICU, as well as several complications such as stress ulcers, deep venous thromboses, and ventilator associated pneumonia. Similar conclusions were found by a meta-analysis in 2011 that looked at 176 tele-ICU articles, which included 41,374 patients. With telemedicine technology, intensivists can theoretically have 24-hour oversight of the ICU from a remote location, possibly being able to oversee multiple units.

Although the average urology patient does not require as frequent monitoring as the ICU patient, telemedicine may still play a role in facilitating care for the postoperative urologic patient. In 2004, Ellison el al conducted a study comparing patient satisfaction between patients seen via standard bedside rounds, patients seen via telerounds (as an additional visit) through a laptop computer, and patients only seen via telerounds through a remotely controlled robot. This study showed that telerounding (either of the latter two arms) was associated with greater patient satisfaction in postoperative care, which was found to be linked to physician availability4. In 2007, the same authors conducted a randomized study investigating morbidity, length of stay, and patient satisfaction between standard bedside rounds versus robotic telerounding. There were no differences in outcomes between the two groups. A significant limitation of robotic telerounding is cost. Having and maintaining the robot costs around $60,000 per year, although Gandas et al was able to find a positive financial impact when using the robot in postoperative gastric bypass patients6. However, the development of tablet computers, which have user-friendly video-conferencing applications, has made telemedicine a more affordable tool. In 2012, Kacsmarek et al conducted the first study using tablet computers investigating post-operative patient satisfaction. Their study demonstrated that tablet telerounding can significantly enhance patients' post-operative experience by providing quicker face-to-face access with their attending physician.

Our study would be the first randomized study investigating the use of video conferencing via tablet computers versus traditional bedside rounding and its effect on clinical data such as length of stay and complications as well as patient satisfaction. As technology improves, medicine has an obligation to incorporate this technology to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If telerounding is proven to not change outcomes or patient satisfaction, it saves time for the physician during office hours to see more patients or be productive in other ways. Telerounding could be applied in remote areas with a dearth of specialists, allowing these specialists' expertise to reach areas it could not before.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

107

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • New York
      • New Hyde Park, New York, United States, 11042
        • North Shore LIJ

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Patients 18 years of age or older
  2. Undergo elective Urologic surgery requiring post-operative inpatient stay

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Patients under 18 years of age
  2. Patients who are unable to provide their own consent
  3. Patients who undergo urgent or emergent Urologic procedures who are not already enrolled in the study
  4. Patients who do not require an inpatient post-operative stay
  5. Patients who are seen on the weekend (Saturday or Sunday)

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
No Intervention: Standard
Group 1 will consist of patients receiving in-person attending-patient encounters while inpatients.
Experimental: Tele-rounding
Group 2 will consist of patients receiving video-conference attending-patient encounters. The intervention is being seen via ipad
Both groups will receive standard of care. The only difference between these groups would be the physical presence of the attending in the room. Both groups will receive a physical exam with supervision of the attending, one group will have attending in the room and the other will have the attending present via I-pad. In both cases if there was something of concern the attending would step in for the physical exam if needed, regardless of which group they were randomized for.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
Complication rates
Time Frame: 4 years
4 years
length of inpatient stay
Time Frame: 4 years
4 years
number of lab tests ordered
Time Frame: 4 years
4 years
severity of complications
Time Frame: 4 years
4 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Additionally patient satisfaction will be looked at based on post-operative questionnaire.
Time Frame: 4 years
how satisfied they were with seeing provider remotely vs standard of care
4 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Manish Vira, MD, Physician

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 1, 2015

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 13, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

November 13, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 22, 2016

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 11, 2016

First Posted (Estimate)

May 13, 2016

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 8, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 6, 2019

Last Verified

August 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 14-659

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.