ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Telemonitoring starting in the emergency department as an alternative to acute hospital admission: A prospective pilot study focusing on patient preferences and first experience.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Telemonitoring at home may be used to reduce acute hospital admissions via the emergency department (ED), but experience in this setting is scarce. We performed a pilot study to investigate the perspectives and experiences of ED patients and care professionals with telemonitoring, started in the ED and used as potential an alternative to acute hospital admission. In this prospective pilot study, we asked medical ED patients for their perspectives on home monitoring. Suitability for homemonitoring was assessed by ED patients and care professionals. In a subset of patients, we started and evaluated telemonitoring. In total, 98 patients answered a questionnaire. The facilitators for telemonitoring as an alternative to hospital admission were: guaranteed admission if necessary (indicated by 96.9% of patients), possibility to contact the treatment team 24/7 (by 90.8%), and presence of someone to watch over the patient (by 72.4%). Main barriers for telemonitoring as an alternative care form were: need for treatment that could not be provided at home, feeling too severely ill, and judging it unsafe to return home. In total, 11.2% of ED patients indicated that hospital admission could be avoided using telemonitoring, while another 6.1% thought this might be possible. Professionals judged fewer patients capable of being sent home with telemonitoring (physicians: 7.2% and 6.1%, resp.; nurses: 10.4% and 4.2%, resp.). Agreement on the capability of patients to be sent home with telemonitoring between patients and professionals was slight-fair. All telemonitored patients were satisfied with the ease of use and comfort of the system, which gave most patients reassurance and was considered an alternative to admission. In conclusion, telemonitoring at home was seen as an alternative to admission in a substantial proportion of medical ED patients. Facilitators for telemonitoring indicated by patients were guaranteed admission if telemonitoring failed and the possibility to contact the treatment team 24/7, while indicated barriers were related to disease severity and lack of someone to watch over the patient. Telemonitoring in acute care may serve as a potential alternative to admissions if facilitators are met.
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.