Search

ObjectiveChronic diseases are associated with increased unplanned acute hospital use. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) can detect disease exacerbations and facilitate proactive management, possibly reducing expensive acute hospital usage. Current evidence examining RPM and acute care use mainly involves heart failure and omits automated invasive monitoring. This study aimed to determine if RPM reduces acute hospital use.MethodsA systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase and CINAHL electronic databases was undertaken in July 2019 and updated in October 2020 for studies published from January 2015 to October 2020 reporting RPM and effect on hospitalisations, length of stay or emergency department presentations. All populations and disease conditions were included. Two independent reviewers screened articles. Quality analysis was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Findings were stratified by outcome variable. Subgroup analysis was undertaken on disease condition and RPM technology.ResultsFrom 2050 identified records, 91 studies were included. Studies were medium-to-high quality. RPM for all disease conditions was reported to reduce admissions, length of stay and emergency department presentations in 49% (n=44/90), 49% (n=23/47) and 41% (n=13/32) of studies reporting each measure, respectively. Remaining studies largely reported no change. Four studies reported RPM increased acute care use. RPM of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was more effective at reducing emergency presentation than RPM of other disease conditions. Similarly, invasive monitoring of cardiovascular disease was more effective at reducing hospital admissions versus other disease conditions and non-invasive monitoring.ConclusionRPM can reduce acute care use for patients with cardiovascular disease and COPD. However, effectiveness varies within and between populations. RPM’s effect on other conditions is inconclusive due to limited studies. Further analysis is required to understand underlying mechanisms causing variation in RPM interventions. These findings should be considered alongside other benefits of RPM, including increased quality of life for patients.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020142523.

IntroductionMelanoma is Australia’s fourth most common cancer. Early detection is fundamental in maximising health outcomes and minimising treatment costs. To date, population-based screening programmes have not been justified in health economic studies. However, a skin surveillance approach targeting high-risk individuals could improve the cost-benefit ratio.Methods and analysisThis paper describes a 2-year longitudinal randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare routine clinical care (control) with an intensive skin surveillance programme (intervention) consisting of novel three-dimensional (3D) total-body photography (TBP), sequential digital dermoscopy and melanoma-risk stratification, in a high-risk melanoma cohort. Primary outcomes will evaluate clinical, economic and consumer impact of the intervention. Clinical outcomes will evaluate differences in the rate of lesion excisions/biopsies per person, benign to malignant ratio for excisions and thickness of melanomas diagnosed. A health economic analysis using government data repositories will capture healthcare utilisation and costs relating to skin surveillance. Consumer questionnaires will examine intervention acceptability, the psychological impact, and attitudes towards melanoma risk and sun protective behaviour. Secondary outcomes include the development of a holistic risk algorithm incorporating clinical, phenotypic and genetic factors to facilitate the identification of those most likely to benefit from this surveillance approach. Furthermore, the feasibility of integrating the intervention with teledermatology to enhance specialist care in remote locations will be evaluated. This will be the first RCT to compare a targeted surveillance programme utilising new 3D TBP technology against current routine clinical care for individuals at high risk of melanoma.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval from both Metro South Health HREC (HREC/17/QPAH/816) and The University of Queensland HREC (2018000074).Trial registration numberANZCTR12618000267257; Pre-results.