MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969569798 · doi:10.2196/13353

Impact on Readmission Reduction Among Heart Failure Patients Using Digital Health Monitoring: Feasibility and Adoptability Study

2019· article· en· W2969569798 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris Park, Emamuzo Otobo, Jennifer Ullman, Jason Rogers, Farah Fasihuddin, Shashank Garg, Sarthak Kakkar, Marni Goldstein, Sai Vishudhi Chandrasekhar, Sean Pinney, Ashish Atreja

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance
KeywordsMedicineDigital healthVital signsHealth careMedical emergencyHeart failureTelemedicineBlood pressureEmergency medicineInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a condition that affects approximately 6.2 million people in the United States and has a 5-year mortality rate of approximately 42%. With the prevalence expected to exceed 8 million cases by 2030, projections estimate that total annual HF costs will increase to nearly US $70 billion. Recently, the advent of remote monitoring technology has significantly broadened the scope of the physician's reach in chronic disease management. OBJECTIVE: The goal of our program, named the Heart Health Program, was to examine the feasibility of using digital health monitoring in real-world home settings, ascertain patient adoption, and evaluate impact on 30-day readmission rate. METHODS: A digital medicine software platform developed at Mount Sinai Health System, called RxUniverse, was used to prescribe a digital care pathway including the HealthPROMISE digital therapeutic and iHealth mobile apps to patients' personal smartphones. Vital sign data, including blood pressure (BP) and weight, were collected through an ambulatory remote monitoring system that comprised a mobile app and complementary consumer-grade Bluetooth-connected smart devices (BP cuff and digital scale) that send data to the provider care teams. Care teams were alerted via a Web-based dashboard of abnormal patient BP and weight change readings, and further action was taken at the clinicians' discretion. We used statistical analyses to determine risk factors associated with 30-day all-cause readmission. RESULTS: Overall, the Heart Health Program included 58 patients admitted to the Mount Sinai Hospital for HF. The 30-day hospital readmission rate was 10% (6/58), compared with the national readmission rates of approximately 25% and the Mount Sinai Hospital's average of approximately 23%. Single marital status (P=.06) and history of percutaneous coronary intervention (P=.08) were associated with readmission. Readmitted patients were also less likely to have been previously prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (P=.02). Notably, readmitted patients utilized the BP and weight monitors less than nonreadmitted patients, and patients aged younger than 70 years used the monitors more frequently on average than those aged over 70 years, though these trends did not reach statistical significance. The percentage of the 58 patients using the monitors at least once dropped from 83% (42/58) in the first week after discharge to 46% (23/58) in the fourth week. CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing burden of HF, there is a need for an effective and sustainable remote monitoring system for HF patients following hospital discharge. We identified clinical and social factors as well as remote monitoring usage trends that identify targetable patient populations that could benefit most from integration of daily remote monitoring. In addition, we demonstrated that interventions driven by real-time vital sign data may greatly aid in reducing hospital readmissions and costs while improving patient outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207