Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42538113›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2026

Exploring patient and NHS staff acceptability of artificial intelligence-supported surgical wound monitoring within the WISDOM feasibility study: a multi-centre qualitative interview study.

Judith Tanner, Melissa Rochon, Karen Cariaga, Roy Harris, Jacqueline Beckhelling, Janet Bouttell, Sarah Bolton, Keith Wilson, James Jurkiewicz, Luxmi Dhoonmoon and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06475703 (Wound Imaging Software and Digital platfOrM to Detect and Prioritise Non-healing Surgical Wounds), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06475703 nacompletednot on this map

Wound Imaging Software and Digital platfOrM to Detect and Prioritise Non-healing Surgical Wounds (WISDOM)

TypeinterventionalSponsorGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustRan2024 to 2025Enrolled120ConditionsSurgical Wound, Wound Healing Delayed, Heart, Surgery, Heart, Functional Disturbance as ResultArmsIsla wound prioritisation module, Standard follow-up
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Judith TannerSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Judith.Tanner@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0023-3149
Melissa RochonInfection Prevention and Control, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1101-2256
Karen CariagaGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-5525-2362
Roy HarrisResearch Support Service, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Jacqueline BeckhellingUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5898-8678
Janet BouttellCentre for Healthcare Equipment and Technology, Nottingham, UK.
Sarah BoltonCentre for Healthcare Equipment and Technology, Nottingham, UK.
Keith WilsonResearch, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1288-1293
James JurkiewiczIsla Health, London, UK.
Luxmi DhoonmoonCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK.
Nada MostafaHealth Innovation East Midlands, Nottingham, UK.
Jon DummerHealth Innovation East Midlands, Nottingham, UK.
Kristia BasilioBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Rosalie MagbooSaint Bartholomew's Hospital Barts Heart Centre, London, UK.
Kathryn ProcterNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Claire McMillanNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to be used within digital surgical wound monitoring to facilitate implementation at scale. AI acceptability is essential to its success. This study aimed to explore patient and staff acceptability of an AI-based digital surgical wound monitoring platform.

designQualitative interviews

settingTwo hospitals performing cardiac surgery in England.

participants20 patients undergoing cardiac surgery and 10 clinical staff participating in a randomised feasibility trial of surgical wound monitoring with AI.

interventionsSemi-structured interviews were conducted focusing on participants' experiences or perceptions of AI-based digital surgical wound monitoring. Data were analysed, guided by the theoretical framework of acceptability. PRIMARY MEASURE: Patient and staff acceptability of AI within surgical wound monitoring.

resultsPatients and staff were supportive of the use of AI within surgical wound monitoring and felt safety was improved, access was increased and efficiency was improved. AI monitoring was perceived to allow the early detection and treatment of surgical wound complications and facilitate the implementation of monitoring at scale for all patients. Some participants were concerned about data security risks, staff over-reliance on AI and the loss of human interaction.

conclusionAI-supported digital surgical wound monitoring appeared acceptable to participants within this feasibility study. Further research is needed to evaluate implementation in broader settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16900119 and NCT06475703.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelCardiac Surgical ProceduresSurgical WoundAdultAgedDigital HealthEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicQualitative ResearchArtificial IntelligenceDigital TechnologyQUALITATIVE RESEARCHWOUND MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID42538113
PMCPMC13436100

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.