Cited by 62Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesHealthcare during COVID-19 Pandemic

Implementation of a multisite, interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring program for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19

Open access
Coffey, Jordan D., Christopherson, Laura A., Glasgow, Amy E., Pearson, Kristina K., Brown, Julie K., Gathje, Shelby R., Sangaralingham, Lindsey R., Carmona Porquera, Eva M. +8 more·2021·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Established technology, operational infrastructure, and nursing resources were leveraged to develop a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19. The program included two care-delivery models with different monitoring capabilities supporting variable levels of patient risk for severe illness. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of a multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness. We report an evaluation of 7074 patients served by the program across 41 US states. Among all patients, the RPM technology engagement rate was 78.9%. Rates of emergency department visit and hospitalization within 30 days of enrollment were 11.4% and 9.4%, respectively, and the 30-day mortality rate was 0.4%. A multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness is feasible, safe, and associated with a low mortality rate. Further research and expansion of RPM programs for ambulatory management of other acute illnesses are warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-021-00490-9

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coffey, J. D., Christopherson, L. A., Glasgow, A. E., Pearson, K. K., Brown, J. K., Gathje, S. R., Sangaralingham, L. R., Carmona Porquera, E. M., Virk, A., Orenstein, R., Speicher, L. L., Bierle, D. M., Ganesh, R., Cox, D. L., Blegen, R. N., & Haddad, T. C.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Haddad, Tufia C.
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2021-08-13
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
123-123
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3193041130
Cited by
61
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 7
FWCI
11.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Mayo Clinic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Healthcare during COVID-19 Pandemic
Keywords
remote patient monitoring, COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient care, telemedicine, feasibility and safety, 30-day hospitalization, emergency department visits, 30-day mortality, models of care, risk stratification, technology engagement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review