Skip to main content

Telemonitoring: Sounds Great. But it doesn't work.

Telemonitoring is a novel disease management strategy that sounds wonderful. But just because something sounds wonderful does not mean it works. Sometimes new technologies are implemented into clinical practice just because we think they should work. But wishful thinking should not be good enough for our patients. New technologies should be subjected to rigorous evaluation before they are widely implemented

Telemonitoring in theory that should improve outcomes for patients with chronic illness. Patients are given devices for use at home that allow them to transmit information via the phone or internet to their providers. This often includes information about vital signs such as blood presssure and weight, symptoms, or other parameters such as blood sugar. The theory is that this information will allow providers to detect problems early, intervene, and prevent clinical deterioration. It sounds so good that many health systems have implemented telemonitoring for a number of conditions. For example, the VA health has made a huge investment in telemonitoring, and within the VA there are major efforts underway to increase the number of Veterans who get telemonitoring.

However, a rigorous study has just been published in the New England Journal of Medicine that throws big doubts on the usefullness of telemonitoring. The study was led by Dr. Sarwat Chaudhry of Yale University. Chaudhry randomized 1653 patients with heart failure as they were discharged from the hospital. This was an excellent test for telemonitoring, as heart failure defines a condition for which telemonitoring should work, and the time after hospital discharge is a very high risk period as many patients decompensate shortly after they go home and need to be readmitted.

Patients randomized to telemonitorinng received a device that allowed them to report weight and heart failure symptoms on a daily basis via a toll free number. The information was transmitted to their clinicians for review. Concerning information (variances) were flagged for attention.

The benefits of the intervention? Absolutely nothing. Those who got telemonitoring had the same rate of mortality and readmission as those who got usual care.

There are many possible reasons for the ineffectiveness of telemonitoring in heart failure. It may be that collecting lots of data on patients and feeding it back to providers is not as useful as we want to believe. Perhaps what's needed is a lesser flood of information and more sophisticated thinking about how to use this information.

But the bigger question: Is all this enthusiasm for telemonitoring justified? I don't think so. This study certainly should raise major concerns in the VA, which now needs to consider the possibility that its investment in telemonitoring is not the wisest use of resources.

Is it possible that other approaches to telemonitoring might be more effective? Certainly. But the burden of proof is now on the advocates of those approaches. Medical practice should be driven by evidence, not wishful thinking.

This study is an important example of why new technologies need to be subjected to rigorous evaluation before they undergo widespread implementation.

by: [Ken Covinsky]

Comments

Much as I love technology, I agree that technology for it's own sake is probably a waste of time. I would like to know more about the support systems around the telemonitoring. Technology does not exist in a vacuum.

The North Shore of Long Island Jewish Health System presented at NAHC in 2009 on their low literacy telehealth program. They had a great station set up in the home with a video camera and a touchscreen monitor (no keyboarding required. This really was for low literacy folks.) There was lots of follow-up and interaction. Not just simple reporting of values.

Their randomized control trial showed significant clinical and financial improvements.

I'm also thinking of the Care Transitions Intervention by Eric Coleman at University of Colorado. Their intervention involved very active coaching to teach patients/families advocacy techniques as well as knowing when to invoke "Plan B" and when to go to the ER. They also had an interactive record, which I believe involved patient access to home monitored values and the ability to communicate with the coach about it.

Tech in a vacuum, is just a lot of toys. Tech as a tool to facilitate interaction, education and empowerment, I suspect has loads of value. I think it's about matching the technology with the human factor.

Popular posts from this blog

Lost in Translation: Google’s Translation of Palliative Care to ‘Do-Nothing Care’

by: Cynthia X. Pan, MD, FACP, AGSF (@Cxpan5X)

My colleagues often ask me: “Why are Chinese patients so resistant to hospice and palliative care?” “Why are they so unrealistic?” “Don’t they understand that death is part of life?” “Is it true that with Chinese patients you cannot discuss advance directives?”

As a Chinese speaking geriatrician and palliative care physician practicing in Flushing, NY, I have cared for countless Chinese patients with serious illnesses or at end of life.  Invariably, when Chinese patients or families see me, they ask me if I speak Chinese. When I reply “I do” in Mandarin, the relief and instant trust I see on their faces make my day meaningful and worthwhile.

At my hospital, the patient population is about 30% Asian, with the majority of these being Chinese. Most of these patients require language interpretation.  It becomes an interesting challenge and opportunity, as we often need to discuss advance directives, goals of care, and end of life care options…

Elderhood: Podcast with Louise Aronson

In this week's podcast we talk with Louise Aronson MD, MFA, Professor of Geriatrics at UCSF about her new book Elderhood, available for purchase now for delivery on the release date June 11th.

We are one of the first to interview Louise, as she has interviews scheduled with other lesser media outlets to follow (CBS This Morning and Fresh Air with Terry...somebody).

This book is tremendously rich, covering a history of aging/geriatrics, Louise's own journey as a geriatrician facing burnout, aging and death of family of Louise's members, insightful stories of patients, and more.

We focus therefore on the 3 main things we think our listeners and readers will be interested in.

First - why the word "Elder" and "Elderhood" when JAGS/AGS and others recently decided that the preferred terminology was "older adult"?

Second - Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 - where do we see ageism in contemporary writing/thinking?  We focus on Louise's…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …