An app for patient education and self-audit within an enhanced recovery program for bowel surgery: a pilot study assessing validity and usability
While patient engagement and clinical audit are key components of successful enhanced recovery programs (ERPs), they require substantial resource allocation. The objective of this study was to assess the validity and usability of a novel mobile device application for education and self-reporting of adherence for patients undergoing bowel surgery within an established ERP.
Prospectively recruited patients undergoing bowel surgery within an ERP used a novel app specifically designed to provide daily recovery milestones and record adherence to 15 different ERP processes and six patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Validity was measured by the agreement index (Cohen’s kappa coefficient for categorical, and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables) between patient-reported data through the app and data recorded by a clinical auditor. Acceptability and usability of the app were measured by the System Usability Scale (SUS).
Forty-five patients participated in the study (mean age 61, 64% male). Overall, patients completed 159 of 179 (89%) of the available questionnaires through the app. Median time to complete a questionnaire was 2 min 49 s (i.q.r. 2′32″–4′36″). Substantial (kappa > 0.6) or almost perfect agreement (kappa > 0.8) and strong correlation (ICC > 0.7) between data collected through the app and by the clinical auditor was found for 14 ERP processes and four PROs. Patient-reported usability was high; mean SUS score was 87 (95% CI 83–91). Only 6 (13%) patients needed technical support to use the app. Forty (89%) patients found the app was helpful to achieve their daily goals, and 34 (76%) thought it increased their motivation to recover after surgery.
This novel application provides a tool to record patient adherence to care processes and PROs, with high agreement with traditional clinical audit, high usability, and patient satisfaction. Future studies should investigate the use of mobile device apps as strategies to increase adherence to perioperative interventions.
KeywordsMobile applications Health education Outcome and process assessment (health care) Colorectal surgery Enhanced recovery
This study was funded by SAGES SMART research grant 2015. The Steinberg-Bernstein Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation is supported in part by an unrestricted educational grant from Medtronic®.
Compliance with ethical standards
Nicolò Pecorelli, Julio F. Fiore Jr., Pepa Kaneva, Abarna Somasundram, Patrick Charlebois, Barry L. Stein, A. Sender Liberman, and Francesco Carli have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose. Liane S. Feldman is the recipient of an unrestricted educational grant from Medtronic.
- 1.Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, von Meyenfeldt MF, Fearon KC, Revhaug A, Norderval S, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Dejong CH, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery G (2009) Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg 144:961–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Pecorelli N, Hershorn O, Baldini G, Fiore JF Jr, Stein BL, Liberman AS, Charlebois P, Carli F, Feldman LS (2017) Impact of adherence to care pathway interventions on recovery following bowel resection within an established enhanced recovery program. Surg Endosc 31:1760–1771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, McNaught CE, Macfie J, Liberman AS, Soop M, Hill A, Kennedy RH, Lobo DN, Fearon K, Ljungqvist O, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society, European Society for Clinical N, Metabolism, International Association for Surgical M, Nutrition (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS((R))) Society recommendations. World J Surg 37:259–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Brooke J (1996) SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 15.Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J (2009) Determining what individual sus scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud 4:114–123Google Scholar
- 16.Lewis JR, Sauro J (2009) The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human centered design: First International Conference, HCD 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, July 19–24, 2009 Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, pp 94–103Google Scholar
- 26.Schmocker RK, Cherney Stafford LM, Siy AB, Leverson GE, Winslow ER (2015) Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS). Surgery 158:1724–1733CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N, Molinier O, Pointreau Y, Domont J, Bourgeois H, Senellart H, Tremolieres P, Lizee T, Bennouna J, Urban T, El Khouri C, Charron A, Septans AL, Balavoine M, Landry S, Solal-Celigny P, Letellier C (2017) Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(9)Google Scholar
- 30.Kleinman NJ, Shah A, Shah S, Phatak S, Viswanathan V (2017) Improved medication adherence and frequency of blood glucose self-testing using an m-health platform versus usual care in a multisite randomized clinical trial among people with type 2 diabetes in India. Telemed J e-health. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2016.0265 PubMedGoogle Scholar