Impact of a Remote Patient Monitoring Platform on Outcomes Following a Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The coronavirus pandemic highlighted the need for remote patient monitoring to deliver and provide access to patient care and education. A mobile-based app providing interactive tools for patient education and monitoring was piloted at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) in November 2020. We aimed to examine the platform's impact on postoperative length of stay, hospital readmissions, and emergency department (ED) visits 60 days postsurgery in total hip and knee arthroplasty patients in Northwestern Ontario. Methods Data were assessed from patients undergoing primary total hip or knee arthroplasties at TBRHSC from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on enrollment with the mobile-based app (SeamlessMD). Statistical differences in outcomes were determined using Mann-Whitney or χ 2 tests. An odds ratio was calculated for ED visits. Results Patients enrolled in the mobile-based app had statistically lower length of stay ( U = 7779.0, P < .001) and fewer ED visits (χ 2 (1,212) = 5.570, P = .018) than patients not enrolled in the program. Patients not enrolled had 2.31 times greater odds of visiting the ED postsurgery (odds ratio = 0.432, 95% confidence interval = 0.213-0.877, P = .022). There were no statistical differences found in readmission rates. Conclusions The implementation of the mobile-based app at TBRHSC showed its potential value as a tool to reduce costs in the healthcare system and improve patient outcomes. Consequentially, more formal studies are required to elucidate the magnitude of this effect.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".