Quality of care for remote orthopaedic consultations using telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.

Download Full-text

Comparison of the effects of intravenous propofol and inhalational desflurane on the quality of early recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective, randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039881 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e039881

Author(s):

Jaesik Park ◽

Minhee Kim ◽

Yong Hyun Park ◽

Jung-Woo Shim ◽

Hyung Mook Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Early Recovery ◽

Total Hospital ◽

Kidney Donors ◽

Living Kidney Donors ◽

Total Hospital Stay ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesWe compared early recovery outcomes between living kidney donors who received total intravenous (IV) propofol versus inhalational desflurane during hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.DesignA single-centre, prospective randomised controlled trial.SettingUniversity hospital.ParticipantsStudy participants were enrolled between October 2019 and February 2020. A total of 80 living donors were randomly assigned to an intravenous propofol group (n=40) or a desflurane group (n=40).InterventionPropofol group received intravenous propofol and desflurane group received desflurane, as a maintenance anaesthetic.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe quality of postoperative functional recovery was primarily assessed using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40K) questionnaire on postoperative day 1. Secondarily, ambulation, pain score, rescue analgesics, complications and total hospital stay were assessed postoperatively.ResultsOur study population included 35 males and 45 females. The mean age was 46±13 years. The global QoR-40K score (161 (154–173) vs 152 (136–161) points, respectively, p=0.001) and all five subdimension scores (physical comfort, 49 (45–53) vs 45 (42–48) points, respectively, p=0.003; emotional state, 39 (37–41) vs 37 (33–41) points, respectively, p=0.005; psychological support, 30 (26–34) vs 28 (26–32) points, respectively, p=0.04; physical independence, 16 (11–18) vs 12 (8-14) points, respectively, p=0.004; and pain, 31 (28–33) vs 29 (25-31) points, respectively, p=0.021) were significantly higher in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group. The early ambulation success rate and numbers of early and total steps were higher, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was lower, in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group. The total hospital stay after surgery was shorter in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group.ConclusionsIntravenous propofol may enhance the quality of postoperative recovery in comparison to desflurane in living kidney donors.Trial registration numberKCT0004365.

Download Full-text