ɫֱ

Digital Patient Podcast

ɫֱ Podcast - Episode 39 - Rush Study Review: Value of an Interactive Phone Application in an Existing Enhanced Recovery Program

April 13, 2021
By
seamless

Subscribe on: | | | | |

Video:

In this episode of the ɫֱ Podcast, Dr. Joshua Liu, CEO at ɫֱ & Marketing colleague, Alan Sardana, review a manuscript from the Journal of Colorectal Disease, ""*. See the full show notes below for details.

*Schlund, D., Poirier, J., Bhama, A.R. et al. Value of an interactive phone application in an established enhanced recovery program. Int J Colorectal Dis35, 1045–1048 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-020-03563-5

Guest(s): Dr. Joshua Liu (), Co-founder & CEO at ɫֱ

Episode 39 – Show notes:

[1:40] Introducing the manuscript, “” and its authors: Devan Schlund1, Jennifer Poirier2, Anuradha R Bhama3, Dana Hayden3, Theodore Saclarides3, Bruce Orkin4, Joanne Favuzza5.

[2:28] How ɫֱ partneredwith Rush in late 2016 for their colorectal ERAS program and why the main goalof this study was to determine the impact of ɫֱ on ERAS compliance &clinical outcomes (length of stay, readmissions, surgical site infections,total cost of care) since the Length of Stay improvements had plateaued for theERAS program;

[9:18] How participantsincluded all patients undergoing colorectal ERAS surgery between February 2017and July 2018, regardless of whether they opted into the phone application;

[9:40] How patients wouldreceive a patient education booklet provided by trained nurses during apre-operative clinical visit and how they would consent for ɫֱfollowing this clinic visit;

[11:10] How 289 patients wereenrolled in the study (147 patients with ɫֱ and 142 without);

[12:11] How ERAS compliancewas measured for oral intake, solid food intake, % of patients completing bowelprep, and % of patients adhering to ERAS medication;

[12:20] Discussing ERAS Compliance Results:

Oral & solid food intake: No significant change between groups, however, patients with ɫֱ were trending in the right direction;

Bowel prep completion: 74.8% of patients did bowel prep with ɫֱ vs. 66.2% without (p=0.059);

ERAS medication adherence: 82.1% with ɫֱ vs. 76.8% without (p=0.005);

[14:14] Why patientsmight be more compliant with ERAS protocols using digital patient engagement sincethe patient journey is complex and technology helps to distill information intobite-sized pieces and explains context for each protocol (e.g. why bowel prepis important for surgery);

[20:27] Discussing Clinical Outcomes Results:

Readmission rates: No significant variance between groups;

(There was no remotepatient monitoring enabled, which is a strong factor in influencing change inreadmission rates as seen by other ɫֱ partners);

Surgical site infections (SSIs): 70% reduction in SSIs with ɫֱ (p=0.019); (3.4% of patients had SSI with ɫֱ vs. 11.3% had SSI without ɫֱ);

Length of stay: 2.0 days reduction in mean length of stay with ɫֱ (p=0.006); (4.4 days avg. with ɫֱ vs. 6.4 days avg. without);

Total cost of care: $2,386 reduction in total cost of care with ɫֱ (p=0.024);

($11,560 avg. cost withɫֱ vs. $13,946 avg. cost without);

[24:00] Why clinical outcomes may have improved with ɫֱ because of increased patient compliance to ERAS elements such as the chlorhexidine wash before surgery which would have impacted SSI rates;

[29:09] Discussing the studylimitations:

1. Small sample size(only conducted at one medical institution);

2. Lack of randomization(due to opt-in nature of study);

3. Did not measurecompliance to all ERAS components;

4. (Not a studylimitation but a technological limitation) The group took a hands-off approach anddid not utilize ɫֱ’s remote patient monitoring capabilities which mayhave reduced readmissions;

1 Department of General Surgery, Rush University Medical Center,
Chicago, IL, USA

2 Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center,
Chicago, IL, USA

3 Department of General Surgery, Division ofColon and Rectal
Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

4 Advent Health Center for Colon and RectalSurgery, University of
Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

5 Department of Surgery, Division of Colon andRectal Surgery,
Boston Medical Center, FGH Building 820 Harrison Avenue, Room
5008, Boston, MA 02118, USA


Share this post

Subscribe to ɫֱ Blog

Subscribe Now

ɫֱ Podcast - Episode 39 - Rush Study Review: Value of an Interactive Phone Application in an Existing Enhanced Recovery Program

Posted by:
seamless
on
April 13, 2021

Subscribe on: | | | | |

Video:

In this episode of the ɫֱ Podcast, Dr. Joshua Liu, CEO at ɫֱ & Marketing colleague, Alan Sardana, review a manuscript from the Journal of Colorectal Disease, ""*. See the full show notes below for details.

*Schlund, D., Poirier, J., Bhama, A.R. et al. Value of an interactive phone application in an established enhanced recovery program. Int J Colorectal Dis35, 1045–1048 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-020-03563-5

Guest(s): Dr. Joshua Liu (), Co-founder & CEO at ɫֱ

Episode 39 – Show notes:

[1:40] Introducing the manuscript, “” and its authors: Devan Schlund1, Jennifer Poirier2, Anuradha R Bhama3, Dana Hayden3, Theodore Saclarides3, Bruce Orkin4, Joanne Favuzza5.

[2:28] How ɫֱ partneredwith Rush in late 2016 for their colorectal ERAS program and why the main goalof this study was to determine the impact of ɫֱ on ERAS compliance &clinical outcomes (length of stay, readmissions, surgical site infections,total cost of care) since the Length of Stay improvements had plateaued for theERAS program;

[9:18] How participantsincluded all patients undergoing colorectal ERAS surgery between February 2017and July 2018, regardless of whether they opted into the phone application;

[9:40] How patients wouldreceive a patient education booklet provided by trained nurses during apre-operative clinical visit and how they would consent for ɫֱfollowing this clinic visit;

[11:10] How 289 patients wereenrolled in the study (147 patients with ɫֱ and 142 without);

[12:11] How ERAS compliancewas measured for oral intake, solid food intake, % of patients completing bowelprep, and % of patients adhering to ERAS medication;

[12:20] Discussing ERAS Compliance Results:

Oral & solid food intake: No significant change between groups, however, patients with ɫֱ were trending in the right direction;

Bowel prep completion: 74.8% of patients did bowel prep with ɫֱ vs. 66.2% without (p=0.059);

ERAS medication adherence: 82.1% with ɫֱ vs. 76.8% without (p=0.005);

[14:14] Why patientsmight be more compliant with ERAS protocols using digital patient engagement sincethe patient journey is complex and technology helps to distill information intobite-sized pieces and explains context for each protocol (e.g. why bowel prepis important for surgery);

[20:27] Discussing Clinical Outcomes Results:

Readmission rates: No significant variance between groups;

(There was no remotepatient monitoring enabled, which is a strong factor in influencing change inreadmission rates as seen by other ɫֱ partners);

Surgical site infections (SSIs): 70% reduction in SSIs with ɫֱ (p=0.019); (3.4% of patients had SSI with ɫֱ vs. 11.3% had SSI without ɫֱ);

Length of stay: 2.0 days reduction in mean length of stay with ɫֱ (p=0.006); (4.4 days avg. with ɫֱ vs. 6.4 days avg. without);

Total cost of care: $2,386 reduction in total cost of care with ɫֱ (p=0.024);

($11,560 avg. cost withɫֱ vs. $13,946 avg. cost without);

[24:00] Why clinical outcomes may have improved with ɫֱ because of increased patient compliance to ERAS elements such as the chlorhexidine wash before surgery which would have impacted SSI rates;

[29:09] Discussing the studylimitations:

1. Small sample size(only conducted at one medical institution);

2. Lack of randomization(due to opt-in nature of study);

3. Did not measurecompliance to all ERAS components;

4. (Not a studylimitation but a technological limitation) The group took a hands-off approach anddid not utilize ɫֱ’s remote patient monitoring capabilities which mayhave reduced readmissions;

1 Department of General Surgery, Rush University Medical Center,
Chicago, IL, USA

2 Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center,
Chicago, IL, USA

3 Department of General Surgery, Division ofColon and Rectal
Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

4 Advent Health Center for Colon and RectalSurgery, University of
Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

5 Department of Surgery, Division of Colon andRectal Surgery,
Boston Medical Center, FGH Building 820 Harrison Avenue, Room
5008, Boston, MA 02118, USA


Recent news from ɫֱ

TDP 223: ViVE & HIMSS Debrief, A New Father’s View on Digital Health, and How AI Is Exposing Every Crack in the Care Journey
April 9, 2026

TDP 223: ViVE & HIMSS Debrief, A New Father’s View on Digital Health, and How AI Is Exposing Every Crack in the Care Journey

Learn More
The 3rd Annual Seamless Care Awards
April 8, 2026

The 3rd Annual Seamless Care Awards

Learn More
Succeeding with Digital Health even when the Novelty Wears Off: What WRHN's Digital Care Journey Program Shows Four Years In
March 31, 2026

Succeeding with Digital Health even when the Novelty Wears Off: What WRHN's Digital Care Journey Program Shows Four Years In

Learn More