Abstract
Background
Systematic health monitoring with patient-reported outcome instruments may predict post-discharge complications after major surgery. The objective of this study was to conceptualize a novel patient-reported outcome instrument for detecting early adverse events within two weeks of discharge after major emergency abdominal surgery and colorectal cancer surgery.
Methods
This study was conducted in two phases. (1) An exhaustive health concept pool was generated using systematic content analysis of existing patient-reported outcome measures (N = 31) and semi-structured interviews of readmitted patients (N = 49) and health professionals (N = 10). Concepts were categorized into three major domains: ‘Symptoms,’ ‘functional status,’ and ‘general health perception.’ We calculated the frequency of each health concept as the proportion of patients, who experienced the respective concept prior to readmission. (2) Colorectal cancer surgeons (N = 13) and emergency general surgeons (N = 12) rated the relevance of each health concept (1 = irrelevant, 5 = very relevant) in the context of detecting post-discharge adverse events. We selected concepts with either a high mean relevance score (≥ 4) or a combination of moderate mean relevance score and high patient-reported frequency (≥ 3 and ≥ 20% or ≥ 2.5 and ≥ 50%, respectively).
Results
Content analysis of existing items with additions from patients and experts resulted in 58 health concepts, of which the majority were distinct symptoms (N = 40). The selection procedure resulted in 29 patient-reported health concepts relevant for detecting adverse events after discharge.
Conclusion
The outlined framework provides content validity for future patient-reported outcome instruments detecting adverse events in the early post-discharge period after major emergency abdominal surgery and colorectal cancer surgery.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Major abdominal surgery carries a significant risk of postoperative complications, which have an adverse impact on long-term prognosis and hospital expenses [1, 2]. The introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs has markedly improved recovery and shortened length of stay; however, initiatives to improve post-discharge quality of care after abdominal surgery remain sparse [3]. Unplanned 30-day readmission is reported to occur in 9–25% of patients undergoing general abdominal and colorectal surgery and is strongly correlated with post-discharge adverse events [4,5,6,7]. Systematic symptom monitoring after discharge might improve self-managing support and assist healthcare professionals in tailoring appropriate out-patient interventions, ultimately reducing morbidity and hospital expenses [8,9,10]. However, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) specifically developed for detecting postoperative complications in the early post-discharge period are lacking.
The extent to which a PROM measures all important aspects of the outcome of interest (i.e., content validity) is a crucial part of PROM validity and should be established early in the development phase and prior to quantitative psychometric testing [11, 12]. Current guidelines on PROM development recommend that inputs from existing literature, experts in the field, and patients from the target population should be conceptualized in a framework that provides a structural outline of the PROM content [11,12,13,14].
The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive content framework and thereby ensuring content validity of a future electronic PROM (ePROM) intended for early detection of adverse events occurring within 14 days after discharge from colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery or high-risk emergency open or laparoscopic surgery involving the stomach, small intestines, colon, or rectum.
Material and methods
Design
The study was designed as a mixed method study (Fig. 1). An initial concept pool generation phase (phase 1) was conducted followed by a concept selection phase (phase 2), which are described in detail below.
Phase 1: concept pool generation
The purpose of this phase was to generate an exhaustive pool of patient-reported health concepts with possible relevance for detecting postoperative adverse events. As recommended in existing guidelines on PROM development [13, 14], we integrated inputs from existing literature, patients, and experts in the field.
Literature review
Existing PROMs measuring multidimensional recovery after abdominal surgery were identified using a recent systematic review [15]. In addition, we further identified PROMs measuring domain, organ, disease, or procedure-specific recovery or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after abdominal surgery by examining the review’s online appendix and reference list supplemented by a literature search using pubmed.gov and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of life Instruments Database. We only included PROMs developed or psychometrically tested in the context of abdominal surgery. PROMs were excluded if we were not able to retrieve the original instrument or if items were not described in detail in key publications. Items from all included PROMs were extracted verbatim and pooled. A clinically founded content analysis was performed to isolate the underlying health concept measured by each item. Item content was initially mapped to WHO’s international classification of diseases (ICD-10) or WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) index [16]. Custom concept categories were created for items without a suitable ICD-10 or ICF category.
Hypothesized conceptual framework
Identified health concepts were categorized into ‘symptoms,’ ‘functional status,’ or ‘general health perception’ using a clinical, content-based approach. The definition of the major health domains was based on the widely used taxonomy of health outcomes originally outlined by Wilson and Cleary [17]. As proposed in the original outline, we hypothesized a downstream causal relationship between the three health domains. In a subsequent qualitative refinement process, concepts were translated into Danish. Closely related concepts were merged. Concepts assessed as unfeasible for self-reporting (e.g., somnolence) or requiring biological measurements (e.g., weight) were excluded.
Patient recruitment
We retrospectively identified all patients, who underwent acute readmission within 30 days after discharge from the surgical department of Zealand University Hospital in Denmark. Patients undergoing either CRC surgery or major emergency abdominal surgery between 01-02-2020 and 01-02-2021 were included. CRC surgery was defined using a combination of ICD-10 CRC codes and the Danish version of the Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP) codes (online resource 1). Patients undergoing elective and emergency CRC surgery were eligible for inclusion. Major emergency abdominal surgery was defined as in the bundle-care protocol ‘Optimizing major emergency abdominal surgery (OMEGA),’ which was established in 2017 as a local quality-assurance initiative to reduce treatment delays and perioperative morbidity. The protocol consisted of standardized perioperative treatment initiatives for all adult patients (≥ 18 years), who underwent a high-risk emergency surgical procedure involving the stomach, small intestine, colon, or rectum within 72 h of hospital admission or as an in-hospital surgical re-intervention. Patients, who underwent open or laparoscopic procedures for acute conditions such as bowel obstruction, ischemia, intraabdominal bleeding, hollow organ perforation, intraabdominal abscess, or fascial dehiscence were included in the OMEGA protocol. The OMEGA initiatives are described in detail elsewhere [18].
Study exclusion criteria were endoscopy as the definitive procedure, pregnancy, language barriers, cognitive dysfunction, non-acute readmission, or death before the time of electronic health record (EHR) data extraction.
Patient and expert interviews
The study investigator (JC) contacted all eligible patients by telephone between 16-02-2021 and 02-03-2021 and asked for participation in the study. A semi-structured, individual phone interview with open questions was conducted to explore the patients’ perspectives on experienced symptoms, emotions, functional status, and overall health condition in the days before the unplanned readmission (online resource 2). Subsequently, the patients were asked to review the categorized list of health concepts and add any concept they might find relevant. In addition, the patients were asked to note if they experienced any of the listed health concepts prior to their readmission (yes or no). For each concept, a patient frequency score was calculated as the proportion of patients who stated that they experienced a deterioration in the respective concept.
An expert panel of three colorectal surgeons, two emergency general surgeons, three surgical nurses, and two nurses specialized in treating stoma-related issues reviewed the categorized concept list. The experts were asked to add patient-reported health concepts that might deteriorate prior to postoperative adverse events in a post-discharge setting.
Phase 2: health concept selection
We invited CRC surgeons and emergency general surgeons from four Danish hospitals to rate all identified health concepts by relevance. Participating surgeons were asked to include both the concept frequency (i.e., the expected incidence of the health concept in the target population) and concept importance (i.e., the extent to which the concept was expected to deteriorate prior to a postoperative complication) in their rating of concept relevance. Concepts were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = irrelevant, 5 = very relevant). The surgeons were asked to rate only in the context of their respective surgical expertise (i.e., either CRC patients or emergency general surgical patients). A mean relevance score for each concept was calculated using pooled surgeon scores. In addition, stratified mean relevance scores were calculated using only colorectal surgeon scores and emergency abdominal surgeon scores, respectively. We did not ask patients to rate the concepts by relevance, as they were not expected to know the relative importance of health concepts that they had not experienced.
We selected health concepts with an overall or stratified relevance score ≥ 4.0 for inclusion in the conceptual framework. We additionally included health concepts with a relevance score ≥ 3.0 combined with frequency score ≥ 20% or a relevance score ≥ 2.5 combined with frequency score ≥ 50%. As few health concepts did not receive a frequency score due to late entry to the concept pool, we allowed re-entry of moderately relevant concepts (relevance score between 2.5 to 4) if consensus was established between all authors (JC, IGO, TW, VB).
Statistics
Patient and expert survey data were manually entered into a designated online server (SurveyXact, Ramboll Management Consulting, Aarhus) and analyzed with descriptive statistics using R version 4.1.3.
Results
Phase 1: concept pool generation
Thirty-five PROMs measuring recovery or HRQOL after abdominal surgery were identified, of which we were able to retrieve 31 (Table 1). A total of 595 specific items were extracted verbatim for content analysis. Seventy-four eligible patients were identified, of which 49 (15 CRC patients and 34 emergency surgery patients) accepted study participation. Table 2 summarizes baseline characteristics and primary reasons for unplanned readmission. The majority of patients were readmitted within 14 days of discharge (median 5 days, IQR 3–8 days). The median recall time (i.e., time from readmission to interview) was 7.5 months (IQR 4.7–9.6 months). The final concept pool consisted of 58 distinct health concepts, of which six were added by patients or health professionals: ‘Pus from rectum,’ ‘generalized edema,’ ‘weight loss (subjectively assessed),’ ‘wound bleeding,’ ‘stool consistency’ and ‘follow-up from health professionals.’ The majority of identified concepts were categorized as symptoms (N = 40), which were subdivided into six sub-domains: ‘Circulatory/respiratory,’ ‘gastrointestinal,’ ‘urogenital,’ ‘general,’ ‘surgical wound,’ and ‘stoma.’ Health concepts related to emotions, cognitive function, and sleep disturbances were categorized as functional impairments, as these were considered to be consequences of upstream symptoms. Online resource 3 summarizes the health concept extraction and categorization process.
Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported in 80% of the patients. ‘Fatigue’ was the most frequent single health concept occurring before readmission (69%) followed by ‘Worry from family members’ (67%) and ‘reduced ability to perform activities of daily living’ (60%) (online resource 4 and 5). We did not calculate frequency scores for stoma-related health concepts, as we only included 16 patients readmitted with a stoma.
Phase 2: health concept selection
Twenty-five experts (13 colorectal cancer surgeons and 12 emergency general surgeons) completed the health concept rating survey. The participating experts’ surgical experience ranged from six to > 40 years. The mean relevance score ranged from 1.5 to 4.8 across all health concepts. The highest rated health concepts were ‘feeling of having fever, sweating or chills,’ ‘abdominal pain,’ and ‘pain, redness or swelling at surgical wound’ (mean relevance score 4.80, 4.72, and 4.72, respectively) (Fig. 2). Twenty-six concepts were selected according to the defined selection threshold (Fig. 3, online resource 6). Three excluded concepts with moderate relevance were subsequently re-entered after consensus was established in the author group: ‘Sleep disturbances,’ ‘pain at stoma,’ and ‘stoma output volume.’ The resulting conceptual framework is visualized in Fig. 4.
Discussion
In this study, we have outlined a conceptual framework of patient-reported issues related to adverse events occurring within two weeks of discharge from major emergency abdominal surgery and CRC surgery. Twenty-nine distinct health concepts covering symptoms, functional impairments, and general health perceptions were identified with integrated inputs from existing literature, readmitted patients, and expert health professionals. The resulting framework provides data suitable for ensuring content validity of subsequent operationalizations, e.g., ePROM surveillance systems aimed at early detection of adverse events after discharge from major abdominal surgery.
A characteristic pattern was noted when comparing patient-reported frequency scores with expert-rated relevance scores (Fig. 3). Overall, symptoms related to specific complications (e.g., ‘wound separation’) tended to receive high expert relevance ratings, while non-specific symptoms and functional impairments (e.g,. ‘fatigue’) only received moderate or low relevance scores. In contrast, patients reported broader and non-specific concepts occurring frequently prior to readmission. Specific symptoms may be highly predictive of a few, severe complications, while broader health domains may be sensitive, but not specific, to a diverse range of postoperative adverse events. Hence, a strength of this study is the integration of both frequency and relevance scores in the conceptual framework establishment and content selection process, likely including both sensitive and specific concepts. The integrated relevance and frequency scores may also support the item selection and development of other PROM surveillance systems intended for early detection of specific post-discharge complications. In such cases, researchers should consider items with high relevance ratings to ensure content validity and thus sensitivity and specificity of the instrument.
Consistent with our findings, surgical site infection, intestinal obstruction, bleeding, dehydration/fluid imbalance (including stoma-related high output), pneumonia, and venous thromboembolism have been reported as the most frequent causes of readmission after CRC surgery and emergency abdominal surgery, most often occurring within 10–14 days of discharge [48, 49]. The majority of symptoms included in this framework cover frequent post-discharge complications.
Several ePROM systems for symptom monitoring have previously been developed for oncological patients receiving chemotherapy [50,51,52,53]. Basch et al. showed that self-monitoring of 12 common symptoms via the Symptom Tracking and Reporting (STAR) system between scheduled hospital visits improved HRQOL, quality-adjusted survival, and readmission rates compared to usual follow up in patients with advanced solid cancers [52]. Web-mediated follow-up has also been shown to be superior to routine surveillance with computed-tomography scans at detecting cancer relapse and overall survival in patients treated for lung cancer [54]. However, few ePROM monitoring systems have been developed for detecting adverse events in a post-surgical setting. One electronic symptom monitoring system with individually-tailored self-management advice has been developed for patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer [55]. However, the ePROM was intended for weekly completion, focusing on adverse events occurring within eight weeks of discharge [56]. A higher data sampling rate might be necessary for detecting early complications. Accordingly, minimizing ePROM complexity is likely crucial to reduce patient burden and maintain high response rates over time [13]. This developed framework provides content for further testing of a novel remote ePROM surveillance system with repeated symptom severity ratings and automated alerts to patients and hospital staff if deteriorations are detected.
According to current guidelines, a well-documented conceptual framework is a prerequisite for high-quality evidence of content validity in PROM development [12,13,14]. Only a few papers have conceptualized postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery, and the majority were based on inputs from a single source or have not been described in detail [12, 24, 57, 58]. Moreover, patients’ perceptions of recovery or HRQOL may differ from their objective health status, although a substantial overlap is plausible. Hence, existing recovery- or HRQOL instruments may not cover all health domains related to surgical complications, possibly resulting in suboptimal prediction of post-discharge complications. This study systematically conceptualized important patient-reported health deteriorations related to post-discharge complications, supporting further operationalization and validation of novel monitoring systems with high predictive power.
The study has some limitations. The target population was defined as patients undergoing either major emergency abdominal surgery or colorectal cancer surgery, and our findings may not be directly transferable to other postoperative trajectories. In addition, differences in postoperative risk profiles may occur between CRC and emergency abdominal surgery, however, this was accounted for by including stratified relevance scores in the selection criteria. Future testing of the final ePROM system may validate the predictive ability in both patient groups. We did not define an a-priori criterion for thematic saturation (i.e., when no further health concepts were added during patient interviews), which is the recommended standard in current guidelines [13]. However, we retrospectively identified all patients readmitted over 12 months at a high-volume surgical center and invited all eligible patients consecutively for study inclusion. Moreover, the patient sample size was larger than the minimum recommendations [13]. The retrospective method of patient identification, however, included a considerable risk of recall bias due to the significant time delay between readmission and interview. Hence, less notable symptoms may not be recalled by some patients due to this time delay. A substantial selection bias was also expected, as we were not able to include perspectives from patients who died after a postoperative complication or patients who were not readmitted due to a post-operative adverse event. Moreover, we did not include a control group (i.e. non-readmitted patients), and it is plausible that frequently occurring symptoms are also expected during a normal recovery trajectory. Additional item selection based on large-scale, prospective testing are required to ensure sufficient specificity of a future ePROM.
In conclusion, this work provides the conceptual framework for a future ePROM measuring health deteriorations related to postoperative complications after major emergency abdominal surgery and CRC surgery. As is intended by our study group, future development steps include operationalization of identified domains into items and scales with subsequent large-scale studies validating the psychometric properties and predictive accuracy.
Abbreviations
- CRC:
-
Colorectal cancer
- EHR:
-
Electronic health record
- ePROM:
-
Electronic patient-reported outcome measure
- HRQOL:
-
Health-related quality of life
- ICD-10:
-
World Health Association’s international classification of disease, version 10
- ICF:
-
World Health Association’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health
- NCSP:
-
Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee classification of Surgical Procedures
- OMEGA:
-
Optimizing major emergency abdominal surgery
- PROM:
-
Patient-reported outcome measure
References
Stokes SM, Scaife CL, Brooke BS et al (2022) Hospital costs following surgical complications: a value-driven outcomes analysis of cost savings due to complication prevention. Ann Surg 275:e375–e381
Portuondo JI, Itani KMF, Massarweh NN (2021) Association between postoperative complications and long-term survival after non-cardiac surgery among veterans. Ann Surg 277(1):e24–e32
Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Hubner M et al (2019) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS((R))) society recommendations: 2018. World J Surg 43:659–695
Bartlett EK, Hoffman RL, Mahmoud NN et al (2014) Postdischarge occurrences after colorectal surgery happen early and are associated with dramatically increased rates of readmission. Dis Colon Rectum 57:1309–1316
Havens JM, Olufajo OA, Cooper ZR et al (2016) Defining rates and risk factors for readmissions following emergency general surgery. JAMA Surg 151:330–336
Kelley KM, Collins J, Britt LD et al (2020) Readmission after emergency general surgery. Am J Surg 220:731–735
Damle RN, Alavi K (2016) Risk factors for 30-d readmission after colorectal surgery: a systematic review. J Surg Res 200:200–207
Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG et al (2005) Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg 242:326–341
Basch E, Bennett A, Pietanza MC (2011) Use of patient-reported outcomes to improve the predictive accuracy of clinician-reported adverse events. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1808–1810
Johansen MA, Berntsen GK, Schuster T et al (2012) Electronic symptom reporting between patient and provider for improved health care service quality: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials part 2: methodological quality and effects. J Med Internet Res 14:e126
Agency (2005) EM Reflection Paper on the Regulatory Guidance for the Use of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Measures in the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. In: Agency EM editor, London
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ et al (2011) Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1–eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 14:967–977
Services USDoHaH Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims In: Administration FaD editor, 2009.
Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW et al (2013) ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 22:1889–1905
Fiore JF Jr, Figueiredo S, Balvardi S et al (2018) How do we value postoperative recovery?: a systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery. Ann Surg 267:656–669
Valderas JM, Alonso J (2008) Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice. Qual Life Res 17:1125–1135
Wilson IB, Cleary PD (1995) Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 273:59–65
Burcharth J, Abdulhady L, Danker J et al (2021) Implementation of a multidisciplinary perioperative protocol in major emergency abdominal surgery. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 47:467–477
McKenna SP, Doward LC, Whalley D (1998) The development and testing of the well-being index for surgical patients (WISP). Qual Life Res 7:167–173
Myles PS, Hunt JO, Nightingale CE et al (1999) Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesth Analg 88:83–90
Kleinbeck SV (2000) Self-reported at-home postoperative recovery. Res Nurs Health 23:461–472
Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K et al (2000) Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth 84:11–15
Urbach DR, Harnish JL, McIlroy JH et al (2006) A measure of quality of life after abdominal surgery. Qual Life Res 15:1053–1061
Hollenbeck BK, Dunn RL, Wolf JS Jr et al (2008) Development and validation of the convalescence and recovery evaluation (CARE) for measuring quality of life after surgery. Qual Life Res 17:915–926
Kluivers KB, Hendriks JC, Mol BW et al (2008) Clinimetric properties of 3 instruments measuring postoperative recovery in a gynecologic surgical population. Surgery 144:12–21
Allvin R, Ehnfors M, Rawal N et al (2009) Development of a questionnaire to measure patient-reported postoperative recovery: content validity and intra-patient reliability. J Eval Clin Pract 15:411–419
Keller DS, McGee MF, Goyal S et al (2013) Construct validation and comparison of a novel postoperative quality-of-life metric and the Short Form-36 in colorectal surgery patients. Surgery 154:690–695
Wong J, Tong D, De Silva Y et al (2009) Development of the functional recovery index for ambulatory surgery and anesthesia. Anesthesiology 110:596–602
Balongo Garcia R, Espinosa Guzman E, Naranjo Rodriguez P et al (2010) Quality of life measurement in the postoperative period in general and gastrointestinal surgery. Cir Esp 88:158–166
Paddison JS, Sammour T, Kahokehr A et al (2011) Development and validation of the surgical recovery scale (SRS). J Surg Res 167:e85-91
Butler SFBR, Techner L et al (2012) Development and validation of the post-operative recovery index for measuring quality of recovery after surgery. J Anesth Clin Res 3(12):1–8
Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA (2013) Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology 118:1332–1340
Lee L, Mata J, Augustin BR et al (2014) A comparison of the validity of two indirect utility instruments as measures of postoperative recovery. J Surg Res 190:79–86
Fazio VW, O’Riordain MG, Lavery IC et al (1999) Long-term functional outcome and quality of life after stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Ann Surg 230:575–584
Bingener J, Sloan JA, Seisler DK et al (2015) PROMIS for laparoscopy. J Gastrointest Surg 19:917–926
Shulman MA, Myles PS, Chan MT et al (2015) Measurement of disability-free survival after surgery. Anesthesiology 122:524–536
Staerkle RF, Villiger P (2011) Simple questionnaire for assessing core outcomes in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 98:148–155
Saab S, Ng V, Landaverde C et al (2011) Development of a disease-specific questionnaire to measure health-related quality of life in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 17:567–579
Hashimoto H, Shiokawa H, Funahashi K et al (2010) Development and validation of a modified fecal incontinence quality of life scale for Japanese patients after intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer. J Gastroenterol 45:928–935
Heniford BT, Walters AL, Lincourt AE et al (2008) Comparison of generic versus specific quality-of-life scales for mesh hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 206:638–644
Honda M, Wakita T, Onishi Y et al (2015) Development and validation of a disease-specific instrument to measure diet-targeted quality of life for postoperative patients with esophagogastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22(Suppl 3):S848-854
Juul T, Ahlberg M, Biondo S et al (2014) International validation of the low anterior resection syndrome score. Ann Surg 259:728–734
McCarthy M Jr, Jonasson O, Chang CH et al (2005) Assessment of patient functional status after surgery [Errata: J Am Coll Surg, 2005 Nov; 201(5):826]. J Am Coll Surg 201:171–178
Feldman LS, Kaneva P, Demyttenaere S et al (2009) Validation of a physical activity questionnaire (CHAMPS) as an indicator of postoperative recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 146:31–39
Whistance RN, Conroy T, Chie W et al (2009) Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 45:3017–3026
Thyo A, Emmertsen KJ, Pinkney TD et al (2017) The colostomy impact score: development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for rectal cancer patients with a permanent colostomy A population-based study. Colorectal Dis 19:O25–O33
Bluebelle Study G (2019) Validation of the bluebelle wound healing questionnaire for assessment of surgical-site infection in closed primary wounds after hospital discharge. Br J Surg 106:226–235
Rossi IR, Ross SW, May AK et al (2021) Readmission after emergency general surgery: NSQIP review of risk, cause and ideal follow-up. J Surg Res 260:359–368
Merkow RP, Ju MH, Chung JW et al (2015) Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United States. JAMA 313:483–495
Moradian S, Krzyzanowska MK, Maguire R et al (2018) Usability evaluation of a mobile phone-based system for remote monitoring and management of chemotherapy-related side effects in cancer patients: mixed-methods study. JMIR Cancer 4:e10932
Wheelock AE, Bock MA, Martin EL et al (2015) SIS.NET: a randomized controlled trial evaluating a web-based system for symptom management after treatment of breast cancer. Cancer 121:893–899
Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG et al (2016) Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34:557–565
Kearney N, McCann L, Norrie J et al (2009) Evaluation of a mobile phone-based, advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) in the management of chemotherapy-related toxicity. Support Care Cancer 17:437–444
Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N et al (2017) Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:djx029
Richards HS, Blazeby JM, Portal A et al (2020) A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery. BMC Cancer 20:543
Avery KNL, Richards HS, Portal A et al (2019) Developing a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related surgery. BMC Cancer 19:463
Urbach DR, Harnish JL, Long G (2005) Short-term health-related quality of life after abdominal surgery: a conceptual framework. Surg Innov 12:243–247
Alam R, Figueiredo SM, Balvardi S et al (2018) Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of recovery after abdominal surgery: a hypothesized conceptual framework. Surg Endosc 32:4874–4885
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Zealand Region. Financial support was provided by the European Regional Development Fund (Interreg Deutschland-Danmark), Dagmar Marshall’s foundation, Else and Mogens Wedell Wedellsborg’s Foundation, Toemmerhandler Vilhelm Bang’s Foundation, Grosserer L.F. Foght’s Foundation, and local institutional sources.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All authors comply with the journal’s ethical policies. According to Danish regulations, approvals from the local ethics committee are not required and thus cannot be obtained for qualitative and questionnaire studies. The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (REG-099-2020) and the Danish Patient Safety Authority (31-1521-284).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Clausen, J., Boesen, V., Gögenur, I. et al. A Content Framework of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Detecting Early Adverse Events After Major Abdominal Surgery. World J Surg 47, 2676–2687 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07143-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07143-w