Impact of Remote Patient Monitoring on Length of Stay for Patients with COVID-19


Introduction

As the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic emerged, hospitals across the nation prepared for an influx of patients. Demand for acute care, including hospital medical/surgical beds and intensive care units (ICU) increased with the rising number of cases within the United States. Preparing for an increasing hospital surge capacity became paramount to offer the appropriate level of care to the maximum number of patients, maintain biocontainment of confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 while still providing safe care to non-COVID-19 patients, and ensuring a safe working environment for health care providers.1

An increased duration of hospital stay not only makes less acute care beds available for other patients, but also increases use of personal protective equipment and prolonged COVID-19 exposure for health care providers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, home telemonitoring or remote patient monitoring (RPM) emerged as a new and powerful modality.2–4 RPM can provide an opportunity to monitor patients in environments outside of the acute care setting and may reduce the number of hospital visits and admissions, thereby decreasing the usage of personal protective material, reducing the pressure on health care personnel, and minimizing the risk of viral transmission.

RPM may allow for optimizing care for patients with or suspected to have COVID-19 infection while ensuring the sustainability of health care capacity and resources for those who need it most urgently.5–7 Furthermore, the promise of continued patient surveillance upon discharge may allow for earlier discharge of patients, opening up additional hospital capacity to patients who need acute care level of care.

With increasing surges of COVID-19 patients, hospitals can anticipate higher volumes of patient censuses and admission rates. RPM can be deployed as part of a tiered approach to open up bed availability in hospitals; this approach extends the walls of the hospital virtually and allows earlier discharge of patients with continued virtual monitoring. Question remains whether RPM can decrease length of stay (LOS) while keeping patients safe. We describe the impact of an RPM program on LOS and quality metrics including return to the emergency department (ED) and hospital re-admissions for patients with COVID-19.

Methods

STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We initially completed a feasibility pilot RPM program from March 2020 to June 2020 with the inpatient medicine services caring for COVID-19 patients at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH), a 690-bed tertiary care academic hospital in Aurora, Colorado; part of UCHealth, a 12-hospital system in Colorado. This was during the first COVID-19 surge at UCH when little information was available on the expected clinical trajectory for this patient population. The focus during the feasibility pilot was to create infrastructure to deploy RPM: inpatient pathways for enrollment of patients, building electronic health record (EHR) processes including an RPM order and downstream processes such as informing the enrollment nurses, and finally creating the infrastructure at the virtual health center (VHC) to be able to continuously monitor patients including technology, staffing, and training, and escalation protocols for decompensating patients.

At the time of discharge, providers would place an order for RPM in the EHR, allowing the RPM nurses to consent and enroll patients into the RPM program. The device placed on the patient, Masimo Radius RPG, allowed monitoring of respiratory rate, heart rate, and pulse oximetry with real-time data transmission from the app to a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant cloud accessed at the VHC. These data were monitored 24 h a day, 7 days a week over an 8-day period by a VHC technician trained for this role (not licensed) with built-in escalation protocols to a nurse and/or attending physician located within the VHC, if needed. This was paired with daily telephone check-ins with patients with a standardized script, including symptom tracking for the duration of the enrollment. To qualify, patients had to have decision-making capacity and a smart phone to transmit data from the smart phone application (app) to facilitate monitoring.

During our second surge, between October 2020 and February 2021, we redeployed the RPM program. Given the large volumes of patients, the only restriction we placed on the RPM program was that the patients were discharging home after an index admission for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION

We retrospectively queried all COVID-19 patients discharged from UCH with home RPM between April 2020 and February 2021 from the hospital EHR data warehouse. We recorded demographic data, oxygen therapy, intensive care unit (ICU) level of care, Charlson comorbidity index, length of hospitalization (LOS), readmission data, and 30-day ED visit.

We separated the data into two phases: phase 1 was between April and June 2020 during the feasibility pilot and phase 2 between October 2020 and February 2021. These data were separated to account for the differences in the operations of each of the phases to allow for appropriate case–control matching. This study was classified as exempt by a local institutional review board (COMIRB 19-2104). Patients were consented at time of registration.

DATA ANALYSIS

Using a two-to-one–matched case–control design, we compared patients who were discharged with RPM with those who were not discharged with RPM from March 2020 to September 2020 and October 2020 to February 2021, respectively. Patients discharged in each time period were matched on age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and limited English proficiency.

The primary outcome was hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes were (1) 7-, 14-, and 30-day readmission to the hospital and (2) return to the ED within 30 days. We estimated means and standard deviations for continuous variables when approximately normally distributed (as assessed by visual inspection of histograms), and medians and interquartile ranges when not, and frequencies for categorical variables. A chi-square test was used to evaluate associations between discharge with RPM and 7-, 14-, and 30-day readmission rates as well as return to the ED within 30 days. A Student’s t-test was used to compare hospital LOS for matched case–control patients who were and were not discharged with RPM.

Secondary analyses were performed to determine whether potential effect modification was supported by the data. We hypothesized that the association between hospital LOS and RPM in each time period may vary according to whether patients were discharged with home oxygen therapy or not. To test this hypothesis, we included an interaction term between discharge with home oxygen therapy and RPM, allowing for the intervention’s effect to depend on being discharged with home oxygen therapy. Using general linear regression, models were adjusted for (1) age, (2) sex, (3) Charlson comorbidity index, and (4) limited English proficiency. Given that hospital LOS is right skewed, this variable was log-transformed to facilitate regression analysis. We reported a relative difference in hospital LOS by exponentiating the coefficient, subtracting 1, and expressing the result as a percentage.8

Patients with missing data on any variables necessary for a specific analysis were excluded from that analysis. All data analyses were performed using SAS Enterprise Guide 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

Overall, 203 patients were enrolled in RPM representing ∼1,293 patient-days of monitoring. We have summarized patient characteristics, English proficiency, financial class, discharge on home oxygen, ICU days, LACE score and Charlson comorbidity index median, LOS, readmission within 30 days and return to ED rates in Table 1.

Table 1. COVID Patients Discharged from University of Colorado Hospital, March 2020 to February 2021

  MARCH 2020 TO SEPTEMBER 2020 OCTOBER 2020 TO FEBRUARY 2021
DISCHARGED WITH REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 78 DISCHARGED WITHOUT REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 845 DISCHARGED WITH REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 125 DISCHARGED WITHOUT REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 931
Age, mean ± SD 49 ± 15 55 ± 17 55 ± 14 58 ± 17
Gender, n (%)
 Female 38 (48.7) 388 (45.9) 56 (44.8) 448 (48.1)
 Male 40 (51.3) 457 (54.1) 69 (55.2) 483 (51.9)
Patient class, n (%)
 Inpatient 73 (93.6) 765 (90.5) 116 (92.8) 823 (88.4)
 Observation patient 5 (6.4) 80 (9.5) 9 (7.2) 108 (11.6)
Limited English proficiency, n (%)
 Yes 38 (48.7) 351 (41.5) 47 (37.6) 299 (32.1)
 No 40 (51.3) 494 (58.5) 78 (62.4) 632 (67.9)
Financial class, n (%)
 Medicare 12 (15.4) 228 (27.0) 38 (30.4) 359 (38.6)
 Medicaid 26 (33.3) 289 (34.2) 31 (24.8) 227 (34.4)
 Commercial/managed care 17 (21.8) 175 (20.7) 32 (25.6) 205 (22.0)
 Indigent care 1 (1.3) 9 (1.1) 2 (1.6) 7 (0.75)
 Other 22 (28.2) 144 (17.0) 22 (17.6) 133 (14.3)
Discharged on home O2, n (%) 53 (67.9) 267 (31.6) 89 (71.2) 326 (35.0)
ICU days, n (%) 22 (28.2) 218 (25.8) 29 (23.2) 195 (20.9)
Last LACE score, mean ± SD 41.1 ± 15.3 47.0 ± 17.3 45.5 ± 14.6 50.0 ± 17.6
Charlson comorbidity index, median (IQR) 2 (1, 4) 2 (1, 4) 3 (1, 4) 3 (1, 5)
Length of stay in days, mean ± SD 7.5 ± 5.5 9.2 ± 11.9 6.1 ± 5.6 6.6 ± 7.4
Readmission within 30 days, n (%) 4 (5.1) 64 (7.6) 13 (10.4) 99 (10.6)
Return to the ED, n (%) 7 (9.0) 69 (8.2) 13 (10.4) 79 (8.5)

Overall, there was a decrease in LOS for patients discharging with RPM without increase in 30-day ED revisits or hospital readmissions. The data are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. There was a strong association between patients being discharged with RPM and with home oxygen (p < 0.0001).

Table 2. March 2020 to September 2020

OUTCOMES DISCHARGED WITH REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 78 DISCHARGED WITHOUT REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 156 p
Readmission to the hospital
 Within 7 days 1 (1.3) 3 (1.9) 1.0000
 Within 14 days 4 (5.1) 4 (2.6) 0.4460
 Within 30 days 4 (4.1) 8 (5.1) 1.0000
Return to the ED within 30 days 7 (9.0) 13 (8.3) 0.8687
Length of stay in days, mean ± SD 7.5 ± 5.5 9.1 ± 12.4 0.2721

Table 3. October 2020 to February 2021

OUTCOMES DISCHARGED WITH REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 125 DISCHARGED WITHOUT REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING, n = 248 p
Readmission to the hospital      
 Within 7 days 10 (8.0) 13 (5.2) 0.2959
 Within 14 days 11 (8.8) 17 (6.9) 0.5010
 Within 30 days 13 (10.4) 24 (9.7) 0.8256
Return to the ED within 30 days 13 (10.4) 15 (6.1) 0.1322
Length of stay in days, mean ± SD 6.1 ± 5.6 6.4 ± 6.4 0.6913

Although no significant association was observed between LOS, readmission to the hospital, or return to the ED between patients discharged with RPM and those who were discharged without RPM, we did observe an interaction effect between RPM and discharge with or without home oxygen therapy (p = 0.0075; Fig. 1) in the second time period. Specifically, the LOS decreased by an additional 36% for patients discharged without home oxygen therapy in the RPM group compared with patients not in the RPM group. No other significant interactions, either overall or within the first time period, were detected.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. RPM, remote patient monitoring.

Discussion

We show that early discharge is possible for patients with COVID-19 using RPM. In addition, there was a strong association in decreased LOS with use of home RPM for patients discharging without home oxygen.

RPM has been shown to decrease acute care needs in certain chronic conditions including heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with variable effectiveness.9 For patients with COVID-19, home telemonitoring may allow for earlier discharge.10 Our study supports this work. We observed a trend toward an overall lower LOS, although not significant, for patients discharging with RPM in comparison with those discharging without RPM. There was a strong association between a reduction in LOS for patients discharging with RPM but without home oxygen therapy.

Unlike Grutters et al., however, although we saw an overall lower LOS for patients discharging with RPM, we did not see a strong association in the reduction in hospital duration in patients discharged with RPM and oxygen therapy when case–control matching. This makes sense because hypoxia portends a poorer prognosis and often a longer hospitalization.11 We postulate that the association may not be significant as the numbers are likely underpowered. Although not ultimately significant, any reduction in length of hospitalization makes more beds available for patients, thereby reducing the use of personal protective equipment and staff COVID-19 exposure and conserving hospital resources for those most in need and decrease overall health care costs.

We suspect the slight decrease in LOS is because there is ongoing monitoring and support for the patient postdischarge that contributes significantly to physician and advanced practice provider (APP) decision making around discharge planning. We saw a larger difference in the LOS during phase 1 in comparison with phase 2. We suspect this is likely secondary to lack of clinical evidence and guidelines available for clinical decision making for this patient population early in the pandemic. As a result, physicians and APPs were more likely to keep a patient longer in the hospital to ensure patient safety. RPM may have allowed physicians and APPs to discharge earlier knowing that their patients would have ongoing monitoring postdischarge.

In addition, physicians and APPs had more tools in the care for patients with COVID-19 during phase 2, including dexamethasone and remdesivir, and were more familiar and therefore comfortable with the general clinical trajectory. As a result, although RPM showed a slightly beneficial trend toward a lower LOS, the difference between the two groups was not as impressive likely given this availability of more tools and knowledge.

Patients discharged with RPM had a strong association with discharging with home oxygen in comparison with their matched controls. We suspect this is because hypoxia in patients with COVID-19 often signaled either worse hospital course or concern for possible worsening postdischarge clinical course in comparison with those who did not require oxygen therapy. As a result, we suspect physicians and APPs were more inclined to consider RPM for ongoing monitoring for patients with need for home oxygen therapy.

Telemonitoring is safe and enables patients to recover in their home environment.12 Furthermore, previous studies have shown that ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19 with home oxygen has an acceptable safety profile.13 Of interest, patients enrolled in RPM had a higher proportion of 30-day ED visits in comparison with those who did not enroll in RPM, although not statistically significant when case matched. We suspect that by closely monitoring patients’ symptoms and vital signs regularly, there might be a phenomenon of early escalation of care by the VHC team in comparison with those who would not be under such scrutiny. There was no association for hospital readmission rates when case matched.

A limitation of our study is that this is a single site study at an academic institution and results may not be generalizable. In addition, we did not perform a cost analysis of RPM, a service that, although covered during the public health emergency, may not be broadly covered in the future.

Conclusions

Our results remain relevant as we face yet more surges of admissions of patients with COVID-19. Even if the surges decrease, we face hospital capacity difficulties as we navigate ongoing COVID-19 admissions in addition to providing care for non-COVID patients. Home telemonitoring after discharge for patients with COVID-19 may be a safe tool that may reduce the mean duration of hospitalization and create more bed capacity.

Acknowledgments

All authors contributed to the design, implementation, data review of the remote patient monitoring program as well as contributed to the final version of the article.

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this article.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Monaghesh E, Hajizadeh A. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: A systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1193. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Annis T, Pleasants S, Hultman G, et al. Rapid implementation of a COVID-19 remote patient monitoring program. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020;27:1326–1330. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Medina M, Babiuch C, Card M, et al. Home monitoring for COVID-19. Cleveland Clin J Med 2022;89:ccc028v3. Google Scholar
  • 4. Watson AR, Wah R, Thamman R. The value of remote monitoring for the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemed J E Health 2020;26:1110–1112. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Treskes RW, van Winden LAM, van Keulen N, et al. Effect of smartphone-enabled health monitoring devices vs regular follow-up on blood pressure control among patients after myocardial infarction: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e202165. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. State of Telehealth | NEJM. Available at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1601705 (last accessed October 15, 2021). Google Scholar
  • 7. Koehler F, Koehler K, Deckwart O, et al. Efficacy of telemedical interventional management in patients with heart failure (TIM-HF2): A randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial. Lancet Lond Engl 2018;392:1047–1057. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Interpreting Log Transformations in a Linear Model | University of Virginia Library Research Data Services + Sciences. Available at https://data.library.virginia.edu/interpreting-log-transformations-in-a-linear-model/ (last accessed October 15, 2021). Google Scholar
  • 9. Taylor ML, Thomas EE, Snoswell CL, Smith AC, Caffery LJ. Does remote patient monitoring reduce acute care use? A systematic review. BMJ Open 2021;11:e040232. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Grutters LA, Majoor KI, Mattern ESK, Hardeman JA, van Swol CFP, Vorselaars ADM. Home telemonitoring makes early hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients possible. J Am Med Inform Assoc2020;27:1825–1827. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Zinellu A, De Vito A, Scano V, et al. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio on admission is independently associated with prolonged hospitalization in COVID-19 patients. J Infect Dev Ctries 2021;15:353–359. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. van Herwerden MC, van Steenkiste J, El Moussaoui R, den Hollander JG, Helfrich G, Verberk IJAM. Home telemonitoring and oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: Safety, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2021;165:D5740. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Banerjee J, Canamar CP, Voyageur C, et al. Mortality and readmission rates among patients with COVID-19 after discharge from acute care setting with supplemental oxygen. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e213990. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar





Source link