ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
A 2-Year Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Virtual Ward Model.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Virtual Hospital, Real Health Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Wrightington, Wigan, and Leigh NHS Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust (WWL) developed a novel virtual ward (VW) service that integrated with community and primary care, supported healthcare throughout a patient's journey, and had a clinical workflow that could step-up or step-down care as needed. We described their VW and evaluated clinical outcomes, adherence, safety, and patient satisfaction.
methodsRetrospective, single-center study of patients admitted to the WWL VW service from January 14, 2022 to January 31, 2024. Clinical data collected by WWL in their database for patients admitted to the VW, were matched to data captured automatically by the Current Health (CH) platform linked to the CH remote monitoring kits assigned to patients on the VW. The CH kits enabled the VW care at WWL and included a wearable device for continuous vital signs monitoring, a blood pressure cuff, and tablet. Evaluation metrics included clinical scope, clinical outcomes, adherence, safety, and patient satisfaction.
resultsThere were 1835 admissions and a 93% match rate between the clinical and CH databases. About 38% of referrals were step-up (31% ambulatory care and 7% primary care) and 62% of referrals were step-down (100% inpatients). Most specialty referrals were from thoracic and acute medicine (77%). The median length of stay on the VW was 8 days [IQR 5-13], 209 (12%) admissions were escalated to the hospital, 179 (11%) escalated to the emergency department out of hours, and 29 (2%) signposted to urgent medical services. Adherence to the wearable device was 92%. There were 38 minor safety incidents (typically hypersensitivity reactions or administrative errors) and 17 expected deaths. About 94% of admissions rated the VW experience as "excellent" or "good." Results were similar between step-up and step-down referrals.
conclusionWe have shown the VW service yielded acceptable clinical outcomes, was safe with no serious adverse events or negative impact on mortality rate. Patient adherence to the technology and satisfaction with the VW service were high. The VW service was innovative in its acceptance of a broad range of patients, expanding services beyond respiratory medicine, and in developing a step-up pathway, preventing some patients from ever taking up an acute bed in the hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.