A telehealth intervention to increase patient preparedness for surgery: a randomized trial

Gabriela E Halder, Amanda B White, Heidi W Brown, Lauren Caldwell, Michelle L Wright, Dobie L Giles, Christine A Heisler, Daksha Bilagi, Rebecca G Rogers, Gabriela E Halder, Amanda B White, Heidi W Brown, Lauren Caldwell, Michelle L Wright, Dobie L Giles, Christine A Heisler, Daksha Bilagi, Rebecca G Rogers

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: Methods to increase surgical preparedness in urogynecology are lacking. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of a preoperative provider-initiated telehealth call on surgical preparedness.

Methods: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence were randomized to either a telehealth call 3 (± 2) days before surgery plus usual preoperative counseling versus usual preoperative counseling alone. Our primary outcome was surgical preparedness, as measured by the Preoperative Prepardeness Questionnaire. The Modified Surgical Pain Scale, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20, Patient Global Impressions of Improvement, Patient Global Impressions of Severity, Satisfaction with Decision Scale, Decision Regret Scale, and Clavien-Dindo scores were obtained at 4-8 weeks postoperatively and comparisons were made between groups.

Results: Mean telehealth call time was 11.1 ± 4.11 min. Women who received a preoperative telehealth call (n = 63) were significantly more prepared for surgery than those who received usual preoperative counseling alone (n = 69); 82.5 vs 59.4%, p < 0.01). A preoperative telehealth call was associated with greater understanding of surgical alternatives (77.8 vs 59.4%, p = 0.03), complications (69.8 vs 47.8%, p = 0.01), hospital-based catheter care (54 vs 34.8%, p = 0.04) and patient perception that nurses and doctors had spent enough time preparing them for their upcoming surgery (84.1 vs 60.9%, p < 0.01). At 4-8 weeks, no differences in postoperative and patient reported outcomes were observed between groups (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions: A short preoperative telehealth call improves patient preparedness for urogynecological surgery.

Keywords: Counseling; Preoperative care; Surgery; Telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

© 2021. The International Urogynecological Association.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Enrollment, randomization, and analysis of research participants
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Preoperative counseling checklist used to standardize counseling between providers

References

    1. Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141–148. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057.
    1. Sung VW, Hampton BS. Epidemiology of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2009;36(3):421–443. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2009.08.002.
    1. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–1206. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286.
    1. Kenton K, Pham T, Mueller E, et al. Patient preparedness: an important predictor of surgical outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):654.e651–654.e656. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.059.
    1. Brubaker L, Litman HJ, Rickey L, et al. Surgical preparation: are patients "ready" for stress urinary incontinence surgery? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):41–46. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2184-x.
    1. Greene KA, Wyman AM, Scott LA, et al. Evaluation of patient preparedness for surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(2):179.e171–179.e177. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.017.
    1. Krantz TE, Rogers RG, Petersen TR, et al. Peer-centered versus standard physician-centered video counseling for Midurethral sling surgery: a Randomized controlled trial. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(8):470–476. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000784.
    1. Madsen AM, Rogers RG, Dunivan GC, et al. Perioperative peer support and surgical preparedness in women undergoing reconstructive pelvic surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(6):1123–1132. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04105-6.
    1. Hall DE, Prochazka AV, Fink AS. Informed consent for clinical treatment. CMAJ. 2012;184(5):533–540. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.112120.
    1. Morrow DG, Leirer VO, Carver LM, et al. Effects of aging, message repetition, and note-taking on memory for health information. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1999;54(6):P369–P379. doi: 10.1093/geronb/54B.6.P369.
    1. Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.379.
    1. Barber MD, Janz N, Kenton K, et al. Validation of the surgical pain scales in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(4):198–204. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31825d65aa.
    1. Carter-Brooks CM, Du AL, Ruppert KM, et al. Implementation of a urogynecology-specific enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(5):495.e491–495.e410. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.06.009.
    1. Nelson G, Altman A, Nick A, et al. Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140(2):313–322. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.015.
    1. Study Randomized. Phase Locked Software; 2019.
    1. Sung VW, Kauffman N, Raker CA, et al. Validation of decision-making outcomes for female pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):575.e1–575.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.035.
    1. Firoozi F, Gill B, Ingber MS, et al. Increasing patient preparedness for sacral neuromodulation improves patient reported outcomes despite leaving objective measures of success unchanged. J Urol. 2013;190(2):594–597. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.025.
    1. Anderson JL, Dodman S, Kopelman M, et al. Patient information recall in a rheumatology clinic. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979;18(1):18–22. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/18.1.18.
    1. McGuire LC. Remembering what the doctor said: organization and adults’ memory for medical information. Exp Aging Res. 1996;22(4):403–428. doi: 10.1080/03610739608254020.
    1. Ley P. Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1979;18(2):245–255. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00333.x.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever