Escalation Pathways of Remote Patient Monitoring Programs for COVID-19 Patients in Canada and the United States: A Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in North America were overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients and had limited capacity to admit patients. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs were developed to monitor COVID-19 patients at home and reduce disease transmission and the demand on hospitals. A critical component of RPM programs is effective escalation pathways. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the implementation of escalation pathways of RPM programs for COVID-19 patients in Canada and the United States. Methods: The search identified 563 articles from Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. Following title and abstract screening, 131 were selected for full-text review, and 26 articles were included. Data were extracted on study location, patient eligibility and program size, data collection, monitoring team, escalation criteria, and escalation response. Results: The included studies were published between 2020 and 2022; 3 in Canada and 23 in the United States. The RPM programs collected physiological vital signs and symptom data, which were inputted manually by patients and health care workers or synced automatically. Escalations were triggered automatically or following manual review by nurses and physicians when signs and symptoms were concerning or reached a specific threshold. Escalations included emergency department referrals, physician appointments, and increased monitoring. Conclusion: Many decisions are required when designing RPM escalation pathways for patients with COVID-19, which is crucial to promptly address patients’ changing health statuses and clinical needs. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of escalation pathways for COVID-19 patients through performance metrics and patient and health care worker experience.
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 | 0.013 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".