Effectiveness and Costs of a Digital Versus Face-to-face Preoperative Assessment Clinic

Surgery

Preoperative assessment clinic, Preoperative anesthetic screening, Patients requiring surgery, Surgical patients

A digital preoperative assessment clinic provides a solution for the increasing demand and declining performance on waiting times for surgery, while conducting assessments to a high standard. However, it remains unclear if a digital preoperative assessment is as effective as a face-to-face clinic in terms of patient health outcomes and experience compared. This study aimed to compare quality or recovery and overall patient experience in patients undergoing a digital preoperative assessment versus regular face-to-face consultations.

Study design This is a randomized (1:1), open label, noninferiority trial performed at 2 locations of a Dutch, urban, secondary care hospital. Aims 1. demonstrate the noninferiority of a digital PAC, in terms of postoperative quality of recovery, compared with a face-to-face PAC, and 2. demonstrate if there is a difference in preoperative anxiety, decisional conflict, patient satisfaction, morbidity, mortality, American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) reliability, and costs. Study population Participants aged 18 and older admitted to the PAC department with a request of undergoing surgery were evaluated for study enrollment. The trial inclusion criteria are age 18 and older, ASA classification I to IV, fluent in Dutch, the availability of an online personal computer at home, and able to give informed consent. Exclusion criteria are pregnant women, and patients undergoing a non-standard pre-operative assessment procedure which included breast- and gastrointestinal oncology and cardiac procedures. Outcomes Primary: Quality of recovery 40 (QOR-40) scale assessed at 48 hours postoperative. Secondary outcomes (Measured 1 day prior to surgery): * State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) form Y1 (also at baseline) * Decisional conflict scale (DCS) * Patient satisfaction with information (NR 1-10) * Patient satisfaction with the screening process (NR 1-10) Measured during the study * ASA reliability * Postoperative length of stay * 30-day complications * 30-day mortality * preoperative anesthetic assessment and surgery cancelation * loan costs Sample size This sample size calculation will be based on noninferiority tests for the continuous primary outcome quality of recovery score (QoR-40) measured at 48 hours after surgery. The noninferiority margin is set at -6 points, which is based on a study by Myles et al. who found a minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of 6.3 for the QOR-40 questionnaire, which was subsequently rounded down. Based on this study, the expected QoR-40 score was177 with a standard deviation of 16 on postoperative day 2 for the control group (face-to-face consultations). A total of 224 patients, 112 in each group, would yield a power of 80%, using a one-sided 97,5% confidence interval (CI), to establish whether a digital PAC is noninferior compared to a face-to-face PAC. With an estimated dropout rate of 25%, a total of 299 patients (150 patients per group) need to be enrolled. Analysis Data will be analyzed as per-protocol. A linear mixed effects model will be conducted with study group and QOR-baseline as fixed effects and treating specialism as random effect. The primary outcome of QoR-40 will be presented as the mean difference between study groups (digital screening - face-to-face screening) with the upper and lower bound of the 95% CI and will be labelled non-inferior when the non-inferiority margin of -6 lies outside the lower bound of the 95% CI. CIs will be calculated using linear regression analysis.

Netherlands