Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36588748›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022

Development and implementation of a nurse-based remote patient monitoring program for ambulatory disease management.

Jordan D Coffey, Laura A Christopherson, Ryan D Williams, Shelby R Gathje, Sarah J Bell, Dominick F Pahl, Lukas Manka, R Nicole Blegen, Michael J Maniaci, Steve R Ommen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. National Patterns of Remote Patient Monitoring Service Availability at US Hospitals.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jordan D CoffeyCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Laura A ChristophersonCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Ryan D WilliamsCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Shelby R GathjeResearch Administrative Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Sarah J BellCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Dominick F PahlCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Lukas MankaCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
R Nicole BlegenCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Michael J ManiaciCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Steve R OmmenCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Tufia C HaddadCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Numerous factors are intersecting in healthcare resulting in an increased focus on new tools and methods for managing care in patients' homes. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is an option to provide care at home and maintain a connection between patients and providers to address ongoing medical issues. Methods: Mayo Clinic developed a nurse-led RPM program for disease and post-procedural management to improve patient experience, clinical outcomes, and reduce health care utilization by more directly engaging patients in their health care. Enrolled patients are sent a technology package that includes a digital tablet and peripheral devices for the collection of symptoms and vital signs. The data are transmitted from to a hub integrated within the electronic health record. Care team members coordinate patient needs, respond to vital sign alerts, and utilize the data to inform and provide individualized patient assessment, patient education, medication management, goal setting, and clinical care planning. Results: Since its inception, the RPM program has supported nearly 22,000 patients across 17 programs. Patients who engaged in the COVID-19 RPM program experienced a significantly lower rate of 30-day, all-cause hospitalization (13.7% vs. 18.0%, Conclusions: The Mayo Clinic RPM program has generated positive clinical outcomes and is satisfying for patients. As technology advances, there are greater opportunities to enhance this clinical care model and it should be extended and expanded to support patients across a broader spectrum of needs. This report can serve as a framework for health care organizations to implement and enhance their RPM programs in addition to identifying areas for further evolution and exploration in developing RPM programs of the future.

Indexed as

acute disease managementambulatory disease managementchronic disease managementdigital healthremote patient monitoring (RPM)supportive caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36588748
PMCPMC9794766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.