Modern technologies of telemedical monitoring of patients with spinal diseases during pandemic

Aim: to evaluate the effectiveness of remote monitoring of patients with spine diseases in the postoperative period using a specialized questionnaire called «Medsenger».

Methods and Materials: 246 patients with spinal disorders were observed at the NMCPF during 2021-2022. Several clinical parameters were assessed and recorded during remote monitoring: severity of pain syndrome, temperature, increase/decrease of muscle strength, sensory disturbances, urinary tract dysfunction and general condition. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 192 patients received standard observation, and 54 patients had remote observation via special messenger.

The follow-up of patients in the postoperative period in the first group was performed at their hospital visit (patientor doctor-initiated  as  required).

Patients in the second group were monitored via the “Medsenger” cloud platform with automated surveys set up.

Results: In the first group 17.71% of patients remained until the end of the follow-up period, while in the second group this proportion was significantly higher — 92.6%. Remote monitoring of patients after surgical intervention on the spine by means of a specialized messenger allowed timely changes in treatment tactics in 13 cases (24% of patients in the second group). The momentary load on the doctor working with patients from the second group during 8 months was 10±2 patients. Constant communication with patients significantly reduced the doctor’s response time to an emerging complication and allowed real-time monitoring of treatment effectiveness.

1. Karpov OE, Subbotin SA, Shishkanov DV, Zamyatin MN. Cifrovoe zdravoohranenie. Neobhodimost' i predposylki. Cifrovoe zdravoohranenie. 2017; 3: 6-22. (In Russ.)

2. Karpov OE, Nikulichev AA, Penzin OV, et al. Arkhitektura meditsinskikh informatsionnykh sistem novogo pokoleniya. Vestnik Natsional'nogo mediko-khirurgicheskogo tsentra im. N.I. Pirogova. 2020; 14(3): 126-134. (In Russ.). doi 10.25881/BPNMSC.2019.43.34.025.

3. Rusanova NYe. Istoriya i problemy tsifrovogo zdravookhraneniya v Rossii. Naseleniye i ekonomika. 2018; 2(2): 5-40. (In Russ.)

4. Batsina YeA, Popsuyko AN, Artamonova GV. Tsifrovizatsiya zdravookhraneniya RF: mif ili real'nost'? Vrach i informatsionnyye tekhnologii. 2020; 3: 73-80 (In Russ.)

5. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcomes. 3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2016.

6. Osoba D. Translating the science of patient-reported outcomes assessment into clinical practice. J. N. C. I. Monogr. 2007; 37: 5-11.

7. Novik AA, Ionova TI. Rukovodstvo po issledovaniyu kachestva zhizni v meditsine. 4-ye izd., pererab. i dop. YU.A. Shevchenko, editor. M.: Izdatel'stvo Natsional'nogo mediko-khirurgicheskogo tsentra im N.I. Pirogova, 2021. (In Russ.)

8. Zingerman BV. Personal'naya elektronnaya meditsinskaya karta — servis, dostupnyy uzhe segodnya. Vrach i informatsionnyye tekhnologii. 2010; 3: 15-25. (In Russ.)

9. Patel S, Ghimire P, Lavrador JP, et al. Patient-reported experience measures in patients undergoing navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS): the introduction of nTMS-PREMs. Acta neurochirurgica. 2020; 162(7): 1673-1681.

10. Hyland CJ, Guo R, Dhawan R, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patients in the United States. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022; 6: 20. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00428-z.

11. Porter I, Gonçalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, et al. Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2016; 5(5): 507-519.

12. Cruz Rivera S, Mercieca-Bebber R, Aiyegbusi OL, et al. The need for ethical guidance for the use of patient-reported outcomes in research and clinical practice. Nat Med. 2021; 27(4): 572-573. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01275-z.

13. Aaronson NK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, et al. User’s Guide to Implementing PatientReported Outcomes Assessment in Clinical Practice. 2015.

14. Tsifrovaya povestka i initsiativy v oblasti tsifrovykh tekhnologiy v usloviyakh COVID-19. Obzor praktik Yevropeyskogo soyuza, Organizatsii ekonomicheskogo sotrudnichestva i razvitiya, a takzhe drugikh stran. M.: NIU VSHE. 2020. Р.19 (In Russ.)

15. Fisk M, Livingstone A, Pit SW. Telehealth in the Context of COVID-19: Changing Perspectives in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(6): e19264. doi: 10.2196/19264.

16. Shinkarev SA, Kargal'skaya IG, Zingerman BV, Nozik AV. Ispol'zovaniye tsifrovogo servisa ONKONET dlya distantsionnogo monitoringa onkologicheskikh patsiyentov na immunnoy i targetnoy terapii v usloviyakh pandemii. Zhurnal telemeditsiny i elektronnogo zdravookhraneniya 2021; 7(1): 14-24. (In Russ.)

17. Prikaz Minzdrava Rossii ot 30.11.2017 №965n «Ob utverzhdenii poryadka organizatsii i okazaniya meditsinskoy pomoshchi s primeneniyem telemeditsinskikh tekhnologiy» (In Russ.)

18. Federal'nyy zakon «O personal'nykh dannykh» ot 27.07.2006 №152-FZ. (In Russ.)

19. Pugachev PS, Gusev AV, Kobyakova OS, Kadyrov FN, Gavrilov DV, Novitskiy RE, Vladzimirskiy AV. Mirovyye trendy tsifrovoy transformatsii otrasli zdravookhraneniya. Natsional'noye zdravookhraneniy. 2021; 2(2): 5-12. (In Russ.). doi: 10.47093/2713-069X.2021.2.2.5-12.

20. Amirdzhanova VN, et al. Populyatsionnyye pokazateli kachestva zhizni po oprosniku SF-36 (rezul'taty mnogotsentrovogo issledovaniya kachestva zhizni «MIRAZH»). Nauchno-prakticheskaya revmatologiya. 2008; 1: 36-48. (In Russ.)

21. Cherepanov YeA. Russkaya versiya oprosnika Osvestri: validnost' i nadezhnost' testa. Vestnik travmatologii i ortopedii im. NN Priorova. 2011; 1: 73-79. (In Russ.)

22. Aleksandrova YeA, Khabibullina AR. Metodologiya otsenki kachestva zhizni, svyazannogo so zdorov'yem, s ispol'zovaniyem oprosnika EQ-5D-3L. Ros. med. zhurn. 2019; 25(4): 202-209. (In Russ.)

23. https://medsenger.ru/about