Remote Patient Monitoring Effectively Assures Continuity of Care in Asthma Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30953/thmt.v7.374Keywords:
asthma, COVID-19, patient safety, quality, telehealthAbstract
Background: Digital health tools to bridge gaps in managing infectious pandemics was a proposition grounded until recently more in the hypothetical than in reality. The last two years have exposed the extraordinary global need for robust digital solutions.
Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the ability of remote patient monitoring (RPM) during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve clinical outcomes and assure continuity of care in patients with asthma.
Methods and Findings:
Design: The intervention combined health coaching telephone calls and remote telemonitoring.
Participants: 102 patients with asthma were enrolled in a telemonitoring protocol at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.
Setting: A private, university affiliated, outpatient clinical adult and pediatric allergy/immunology and pulmonary practice.
Intervention: Patients were enrolled with the primary rationale of maintaining continuity of care in the face of uncertain clinical care options. Enrollment and data collection proceeded in a fashion to allow detailed retrospective analysis. Telemonitoring included a pulse oximeter linked to a smart phone using the software platform Plan-it Med (PIM)®. A healthcare professional monitored data daily, and patients were contacted by providers due to vital sign abnormalities and treatment plan alterations. Patients were encouraged to remain on the platform daily during the first three months of the pandemic. After respiratory and or clinical stability was achieved and clinic visit opportunities were resumed, patients were encouraged to maintain engagement with the platform but were not expected to use the platform daily.
Main Outcome measures: Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores were recorded before and after 6 months. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (dependent groups, before vs. after) and Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed for unpaired results (independent groups, RPM vs. Control).
Results: 19 of 102 patients had physiological abnormalities detected (18.6%). Eight of these 19 patients had actionable changes in prescription regimens based on RPM findings (42.1%). In patients utilizing RPM, there was a reported decrease in shortness of breath episodes and a decreased need for rescue inhalers/nebulizer medications (P=0.005). Daily engagement in the first three months of the protocol was 61%. In a subset analysis, 48 study participants (47.1%) chose to continue to actively use the program for at least 14 months. 54 RPM patients were 99.1% compliant with RPM after 110 patient months. Of the patients that chose to discontinue the RPM program the reasons included: (1) symptom alleviation (41.7%); (2) out-of-pocket costs to patients (38.9%), and (3) difficulty using the RPM program (16.7%).
Conclusions: A novel RPM technology positively impacted continuity of care, asthma outcomes, quality of life, and self-care.
Downloads
References
Gates B. Shattuck lecture innovation for pandemics. Presented at: Shattuck Lecture Innovation for Pandemics, 27 April 2018. Available from: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Ideas/Speeches/2018/04/Shattuck-Lecture-Innovation-for-Pandemics [cited 2 February 2022].
Fineberg H. Pandemic preparedness and response – lessons from the H1N1 influenza of 2009. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(14): 1335–42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1208802
Whitelaw S, Mamas AM, Topol E, Van Spall HGC. Applications of digital technology in COVID-19 pandemic planning and response. Lancet Digit Health 2020; 2(8): E435–40. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30142-4
Pevnick JM, Fuller G, Duncan R, Spiegel BMR. A large-scale initiative inviting patients to share personal fitness tracker data with their providers: initial results. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0165908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165908
Andreu-Perez J, Leff DR, Ip HM, Yang GZ. From wearable sensors to smart implants – toward pervasive and personalized healthcare. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2015; 62: 2750–62. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2015.2422751
Ajami S, Teimouri F. Features and application of wearable biosensors in medical care. J Res Med Sci 2015; 20: 1208–15. doi: 10.4103/1735-1995.172991
Wong AH, Ahmed RA, Ray JM, Khan H, Hughes PG, McCoy CE, et al. Supporting the Quadruple aim using simulation and human factors during COVID-19 care. Am J Med Qual Off J Am Coll Med Qual 2021; 36(2): 73–83. doi: 10.1097/01.JMQ.0000735432.16289.d2
Behar JA, Liu C, Kotzen K, Tsutus K, Corino VDA, Singh J et al. Remote health diagnosis and monitoring in the time of COVID-19. Physiol Meas 2020; 41(10): 10TR01. doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/abba0a
Dunn P, Hazzard E. Technology approaches to digital health literacy. Int J Cardiol 2019; 293: 294–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.06.039
Su D, Michaud TL, Estabrooks P, Schwab RJ, Leslie A, Eiland LA, et al. Diabetes management through remote patient monitoring: the importance of patient activation and engagement with the technology. Telemed E-Health 2018; 25(10): 952–9. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0205
Lee PA, Greenfield G, Pappas Y. The impact of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18(1): 495. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3274-8
Huang Z, Tao H, Meng Q, Jing L. Management of endocrine disease. Effects of telecare intervention on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Endocrinol 2015; 172(3): R93–101. doi: 10.1530/EJE-14-0441
Medical Advisory Secretariat. Home telemonitoring for type 2 diabetes: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2009; 9(24): 1–38.
Zhai YK, Zhu WJ, Cai YL, Sun DX, Zhao J. Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014; 93(28): e312. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000312
Saffari M, Ghanizadeh G, Koenig HG. Health education via mobile text messaging for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes 2014; 8(4): 275–85. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2014.03.004
Hanlon P, Daines L, Campbell C, McKinstry B, Weller D, Pinnock H. Telehealth interventions to support self-management of long-term conditions: a systematic metareview of diabetes, heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19(5): e172. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6688
Hale TM, Jethwani K, Kandola MS, Saldana F, Kvedar JC. A remote medication monitoring system for chronic heart failure patients to reduce readmissions: a two-arm randomized pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18(4): e91. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5256
Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, MD, Costanzo MR, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 377(9766): 658–66. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60101-3
Alotaibi S, Hernandez-Montfort J, Ali OE, El-Chilali K, Perez BA. Remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices in heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Heart Fail Rev 2020; 25(3): 469–79. doi: 10.1007/s10741-020-09923-1
Givertz MM, Stevenson LW, Costanzo MR, Bourge RC, Bauman JG, Ginn G, et al. Pulmonary artery pressure-guided management of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70(15): 1875–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.010
Cruz J, Brooks D, Marques A. Home telemonitoring effectiveness in COPD: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 2014; 68(3): 369–78. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12345
McLean S, Nurmatov U, Liu JL, Pagliari C, Car J, Sheikh A. Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (7): CD007718. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007718.pub2
Kamei T, Yamamoto Y, Kajii F, Nakayama Y, Kawakami C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving telehome monitoring-based telenursing for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Jpn J Nurs Sci 2013; 10(2): 180–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7924.2012.00228.x
Murphy LA, Harrington P, Taylor SJ, Yuki Nakayama, Chiharu Kawakami, Pinnock H, et al. Clinical-effectiveness of self-management interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an overview of reviews. Chron Respir Dis 2017; 14(3): 276–88. doi: 10.1177/1479972316687208
Shah SA, Velardo C, Farmer A, Tarassenko L. Exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: identification and prediction using a digital health system. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19(3): e69. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7207
Cooper CB, Sirichana W, Arnold MT, Teljeur C, Smith SM, Pinnock H, et al. Remote patient monitoring for the detection of COPD exacerbations. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2020; 15: 2005–13. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S256907
Mosnaim GS, Stempel DA, Gonzalez C Kaye L, Shalowitz M, Szefler S, et al. The impact of patient self-monitoring via electronic medication monitor and mobile app plus remote clinician feedback on adherence to inhaled corticosteroids: a randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 9(4): 1586–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.10.064
Kew KM, Cates CJ. Home telemonitoring and remote feedback between clinic visits for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; (8): CD011714. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011714.pub2
Schatz M, Sorkness CA, Li JT, Marcus P, Murray JJ, Nathan RA, et al. Asthma control test: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients not previously followed by asthma specialists. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 117(3): 8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.01.011
Nathan RA, Sorkness CA, Kosinski M, Schatz M, Li JT, Marcus P, et al. Development of the asthma control test: a survey for assessing asthma control. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 113(1): 59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.09.008
Piotrowicz E, Baranowski R, Bilinska M, Stepnowska M, Piotrowska M, Wójcik A, et al. A new model of home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure: effectiveness, quality of life, and adherence. Eur J Heart Fail 2010; 12(2): 164–71. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfp181
Majumder S, Mondal T, Deen MJ. Wearable sensors for remote health monitoring. Sensor 2017; 17: 130. doi: 10.3390/s17010130
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press (US); 2001. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222274/ [cited 1 July 2021].
Romani G, Dal Mas F, Massaro M, Cobianchi L, Modenese M, Barcellini A et al. Population health strategies to support hospital and intensive care unit resiliency during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Italian experience. Popul Health Manag 2021; 24(2): 174–81. doi: 10.10931089/pop.2020.0255
Piras EM, Miele F. On digital intimacy: redefining provider-patient relationships in remote monitoring. Sociol Health Illn 2019; 41(Suppl 1):116–31. doi: 10.10931111/1467-9566.12947
Parretti C, Tartaglia R, La Regina M, Venneri F, Sbrana G, Mandò M., Improved FMEA methods for proactive health care risk assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of COVID-19 remote patient telemonitoring. Am J Med Qual 2022; 37(6): 535–544. doi: 10.10931097/JMQ.0000000000000089
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Christopher March, BS, Kimberly Gandy, MD, PhD, Jos Domen, PhD, Sayyed Hamidi, MD, MBA, MPH, Ryan Chen, BS, Paul Barach, MD, MPH, Anthony Szema, MD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to Telehealth and Medicine Today (THMT).
THMT is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
