Cited by 70Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTechnology Use by Older AdultsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Conceptualizing smartphone use in outpatient wound assessment: patients' and caregivers' willingness to use technology

Open access
Wiseman, Jason T., Fernandes-Taylor, Sara, Barnes, Maggie L., Tomsejova, Adela, Saunders, R. Scott, Kent, K. Craig·2015·Journal of Surgical Research

Abstract

Background Information technology is transforming health care communication. Using smartphones to remotely monitor incisional wounds via digital photos as well as collect postoperative symptom information has the potential to improve patient outcomes and transitional care. We surveyed a vulnerable patient population to evaluate smartphone capability and willingness to adopt this technology. Methods We surveyed 53 patients over a 9-mo period on the vascular surgery service at a tertiary care institution. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe survey item response. Results A total of 94% of recruited patients (50 of 53) participated. The cohort was 50% female, and the mean age was age 70 y (range: 41-87). The majority of patients owned cell phones (80%) and 23% of these cell phones were smartphones. Ninety percent of patients had a friend or family member that could help take and send photos with a smartphone. Ninety-two percent of patients reported they would be willing to take a digital photo of their wound via a smartphone (68% daily, 22% every other day, 2% less than every other day, and 8% not at all). All patients reported they would be willing to answer questions related to their health via a smartphone. Patients identified several potential difficulties with regard to adopting a smartphone wound-monitoring protocol including logistics related to taking photos, health-related questions, and coordination with caretakers. Conclusions Our survey demonstrates that an older patient cohort with significant comorbidity is able and willing to adopt a smartphone-based postoperative monitoring program. Patient training and caregiver participation will be essential to the success of this intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jss.2015.05.011

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 34 · Cited by 70

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [1]Bashshur R Shannon G Krupinski E Grigsby J Sustaining and Realizing the Promise of Telemedicine Telemed E-Health 2013 19 339 345 PMC3632093 23289907
  2. [2]Mangram AJ Horan TC Pearson ML Silver LC Jarvis WR Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999 Am J Infect Control 1999 27 97 134 10196487
  3. [3]National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004 Am J Infect Control 2004 32 470 485 15573054
  4. [4]Kirkland K Briggs J Trivette S The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999 20 725 730 10580621
  5. [5]Engelbert TL Fernandes-Taylor S Gupta PK Kent KC Matsumura J Clinical characteristics associated with readmission among patients undergoing vascular surgery J Vasc Surg 2014 59 1349 1355 24368042
  6. [6]Gibson A Tevis S Kennedy G Readmission after delayed diagnosis of surgical site infection: a focus on prevention using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Am J Surg 2014 207 832 839 24119885 PMC4811594
  7. [7]Zimlichman E Henderson D Tamir O Franz C Song P Yamin CK Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system JAMA Intern Med 2013 173 2039 2046 23999949
  8. [8]Wiseman J Guzman A Fernandes-Taylor S Engelbert T Saunders R Kent K General and vascular surgery readmissions: A systematic review J Am Coll Surg 2014 219 552 569 25067801 PMC4243160
  9. [9]Perencevich EN Sands KE Cosgrove SE Guadagnoli E Meara E Platt R Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge Emerg Infect Dis 2003 9 196 203 12603990 PMC2901944
  10. [10]Whitby M McLaws M-L Collopy B Looke DFL Doidge S Henderson B Post-discharge surveillance: can patients reliably diagnose surgical wound infections? J Hosp Infect 2002 52 155 160 12419265
  11. [11]Seaman M Lammers R Inability of patients to self-diagnose wound infections J Emerg Med 1991 9 215 219 1677648
  12. [12]Murphy RX Bain Ma Wasser TE Wilson E Okunski WJ The reliability of digital imaging in the remote assessment of wounds: defining a standard Ann Plast Surg 2006 56 431 436 16557079
  13. [13]Wirthlin DJ Buradagunta S Edwards Ra Brewster DC Cambria RP Gertler JP Telemedicine in vascular surgery: feasibility of digital imaging for remote management of wounds J Vasc Surg 1998 27 1089 1099 discussion 1099–100. 9652471
  14. [14]Engel H Huang J Tsao C Lin C Chou P Brey E Remote real-time monitoring of free flaps via smartphone photography and 3G wireless internet: A prospective study evidencing diagnostic accuracy Microsurgery 2011 31 589 595 22072583
  15. [16]Hampton T Recent Advances in Mobile Technology Benefit Global Health, Research, and Care J Am Med Assoc 2012 307 2013 2014 22665083
  16. [17]Jencks SF Williams MV Coleman EA Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program N Engl J Med 2009 360 1418 1428 19339721
  17. [19]Boulos MNK Wheeler S Tavares C Jones R How smartphones are changing the face of mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview, with example from eCAALYX Biomed Eng Online 2011 10 24 21466669 PMC3080339
  18. [20]Rimner T Blozik E Fischer Casagrande B Von Overbeck J Digital skin images submitted by patients: an evaluation of feasibility in store-and-forward teledermatology Eur J Dermatol 2010 20 606 610 20634171
  19. [24]Pieper B Sieggreen M Discharge knowledge and concerns of patients going home with a wound J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs 2007 34 245 253 17505242
  20. [25]Ricciardi L Mostashari F Murphy J Daniel JG Siminerio EP A national action plan to support consumer engagement via e-health Health Aff (Millwood) 2013 32 376 384 23381531
  21. [27]Ferri CP Prince M Brayne C Brodaty H Fratiglioni L Ganguli M Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study Lancet 2005 366 2112 2117 16360788 PMC2850264
  22. [28]Alzheimer’s Association Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures 2013 Chicago 23507120
  23. [29]Mitnick S Leffler C Hood VL Family caregivers, patients and physicians: ethical guidance to optimize relationships J Gen Intern Med 2010 25 255 260 20063128 PMC2839338
  24. [33]Benefield LE Beck C Reducing the distance in distance-caregiving by technology innovation Clin Interv Aging 2007 2 267 272 18044143 PMC2684505
  25. [34]Fisher ES Shortell SM Accountable care organizations: Accountable for What, to Whom, and How J Am Med Assoc 2010 304 1715 1716 20959584
  26. [35]Hassol A Walker J Kidder D Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging J Am Med Informatics Assoc 2004 11 505 513 PMC524631 15299001

Authors
Wiseman, J. T., Fernandes-Taylor, S., Barnes, M. L., Tomsejova, A., Saunders, R. S., & Kent, K. C.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Kent, K. Craig
Venue
Journal of Surgical Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
198
Issue
1
Pages
245-251
ISSN
0022-4804 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1893676520
Cited by
70
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2
FWCI
16.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Surgical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS 023395, R21HS023395)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL110853, HL110853)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
smartphone use, wound monitoring, incisional wounds, postoperative care, remote patient monitoring, technology adoption, caregiver involvement, elderly patients, vascular surgery, digital photographs, care transitions, patient training
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Postoperative Complications, Surgical Wound Infection, Caregivers, Telemedicine, Cell Phone

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review