Dataset Information

Developing a virtual geriatric perioperative medicine clinic: a mixed methods healthcare improvement study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

the Geriatric Perioperative Care clinic at North Bristol NHS Trust was suspended in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. A virtual clinic was piloted to deliver preoperative health optimisation and shared decision-making for patients undergoing critical elective surgery. No literature existed on virtual preoperative clinics for older people to support the development.

Objective

this healthcare improvement study describes the setup and delivery of the virtual clinic as its primary aim. Secondary aims included: assessing older people's access to technology and their digital literacy for virtual consultation; to describe barriers and facilitators for consultations, as well as evaluation of patient and clinician satisfaction with the consultations' mode of delivery and outcomes.

Methods

a mixed methods healthcare improvement study was undertaken through plan-do-study-act cycles, semi-structure interviews, and quantitative service benchmarking.

Results

the pilot evaluated 67 preoperative consultations (43.3% video, 56.7% telephone, mean age 75) with a mix of surgical pathology (vascular 88.1%, colorectal 10.4%, urological 1.5%). Patient feedback demonstrated improved understanding of conditions (90.6%), and adequate opportunity to express opinions and questions (96.2%). Clinicians preferred video consultations (adequate to deliver services: 89.7% video; 68.4% telephone). The greatest barriers to engagement, none of which were exclusions to participation, included cognitive impairment, sensory impairment, or needing technical assistance setting up video consultations (52.2%).

Conclusions

delivering a virtual preoperative medical optimisation and shared decision clinic for older people is feasible. This study will aid other units in developing their own virtual preoperative clinics. Future work should evaluate perioperative outcomes of delivering a face-to-face versus virtual clinic.

SUBMITTER: Joughin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8240915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Perioperative complications have a lasting effect on health-related quality of life and long-term survival. The Royal College of Anaesthetists has proposed the development of perioperative medicine (POM) services as an intervention aimed at improving postoperative outcome, by providing better coordinated care for high-risk patients. The Perioperative Medicine Service for High-risk Patients Implementation Pilot was developed to determine if a specialist POM service is able to reduce postoperative morbidity, failure to rescue, mortality and cost associated with hospital admission. The service involves individualised objective risk assessment, admission to a postoperative critical care unit and follow-up on the surgical ward by the POM team. This paper introduces the service and how it will be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVALUATION:A mixed-methods evaluation is exploring the impact of the service. Clinical effectiveness of the service is being analysed using a 'before and after' comparison of the primary outcome (the PostOperative Morbidity Score). Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, validated surveys to explore quality of life (EQ-5D) and quality of recovery (Quality of Recovery-15 Score). The impact on costs is being analysed using 'before and after' data from the Patient-Level Information and Costing System and the National Schedule of Reference Costs. The perceptions and experiences of staff and patients with the service, and how it is being implemented, are being explored by a qualitative process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was classified as a service evaluation. Participant information sheets and consent forms have been developed for the interviews and approvals required for the use of the validated surveys were obtained. The findings of the evaluation are being used formatively, to make changes in the service throughout implementation. The findings will also be used to inform the potential roll-out of the service to other sites.

Project description:Background More research is required to understand the effects of implementing structured goal-setting on trainee engagement in competency-based clinical learning environments. Objective To explore how residents experienced a rotation-specific goal-setting intervention on geriatric medicine rotations at 2 hospitals. Methods All rotating residents were expected to complete the intervention, consisting of a SMART-based (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound) goal-setting form and feedback sessions with teaching faculty. From November 2019 to June 2021, we recruited a convenience sample of rotating residents. Study participants completed pre- and postrotation 35-item Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) questionnaires to compare scores from their rotation before the geriatric rotation and a postrotation semistructured interview, which we transcribed and analyzed using principles of constant comparison and reflexive thematic analysis. Results We interviewed 12 of 58 (20.7%) residents participating in the goal-setting intervention, 11 of whom completed both D-RECT questionnaires. Participants' D-RECT scores favored the geriatric medicine rotation versus the immediately preceding clinical rotation (M=4.29±0.37; M=3.84±0.44, P=.002). Analyses of interview transcripts yielded 3 themes on how participants perceived the intervention influenced their learning experience: (1) structured forms and processes mediate, inform, and constrain goal selection; (2) interactions with faculty, patients, and system factors influenced goal enactment; and (3) unstructured assessments led to uncertainty around goal achievement. Challenges included time restrictions and unpredictable clinical opportunities. Conclusions Goal-setting appeared to help many residents direct their learning efforts and engage in collaborative processes with teaching faculty. We identified challenges limiting residents' engagement with the goal-setting intervention, which may inform the practical implementation of goal-setting in other competency-based curricula.

Project description:BackgroundPreoperative medical consultations add expense and burden for patients and the impact of these consults on patient outcomes is conflicting. Previous work suggests that 10-40% of preoperative medical consult recommendations are not followed. This limits measurement of the effect of perioperative medical consultation on patient outcomes and represents a quality gap, given the patient time and healthcare cost associated with consultation. We aimed to measure, characterize, and understand reasons for missed recommendations from preoperative medical consultation.MethodsThis explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study used chart audits followed by semi-structured interviews. Chart audit of consecutive patients seen in preoperative medical clinic were reviewed to measure the proportion and characterize the type of recommendations that were not completed ("missed"). This phase informed the interview participants and questions. The interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Template analysis was used to understand drivers and barriers of missed recommendations RESULTS: Chart audit included 255 patients (n=161, 63.1% female) seen in preadmission clinic between April 1 and April 30, 2019. 55.7% of patients had all recommendations followed (n=142). Postoperative anticoagulation management and postoperative cardiac biomarker surveillance recommendations were least commonly followed (50.0%, n=28, and 68.9%, n=82, respectively). Eighteen surgical team members were interviewed. Missed recommendations were both unintentional and intentional, and the key drivers differed by these categories. Unintentionally missed recommendations occurred due to individual-level factors (drivers: knowledge of the consultation note, lack of routine for reviewing the consultation note, and competing demands on time) and systems-level factors (driver: lack of role clarity). Intentionally missed recommendations occurred due to user error due (drivers: lack of knowledge of guidelines or evidence) and appropriate modifications (driver: need to adapt a preoperative plan for a complicated postoperative course).ConclusionsOnly 55.7% of consult notes had all recommendations followed, suggesting a quality gap in perioperative medical care. Qualitative data suggests multiple drivers of missed recommendations that should be targeted to improve the efficiency of care for these patients.