The effect and implementation of the COVID Box, a remote patient monitoring system for patients with a COVID-19 infection in primary care: a matched cohort study.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pressure on hospitals increased tremendously. To alleviate this pressure, a remote patient monitoring system called the COVID Box was developed and implemented in primary care. The aim was to assess whether the COVID Box in primary care could reduce emergency department (ED) referrals due to a COVID-19 infection. A matched cohort study was performed between December 2020 and June 2021. Patients with a COVID-19 infection in need of intensive monitoring based on the clinical judgement of their own general practitioner received the COVID Box in primary care combining home monitoring of vital parameters with daily video consultations. The control group was retrospectively matched by propensity score matching. We conducted a subgroup analysis in higher-risk patients with oxygen saturation measurements, considering oxygen saturation as a critical parameter for assessing the risk of a complicated infection. We included 205 patients, of whom 41 patients were monitored with the COVID Box (mean age 70 and 53.7% male) and 164 in the control group (mean age 71.5 and 53% male). No difference was found in ED referrals between the intervention and control groups in our primary analysis. In the subgroup analysis, we found a nonsignificant trend that remote monitoring could reduce the ED referrals. While the overall study found comparable ED referrals between groups, the subgroup analysis suggested a promising prospect in reducing ED referrals due to remote monitoring of higher-risk patients with acute respiratory disease in primary care.

Tailoring remote patient management in cardiovascular risk management for healthcare professionals using panel management: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While remote patient management (RPM) has the potential to assist in achieving treatment targets for cardiovascular risk factors in primary care, its effectiveness may vary among different patient subgroups. Panel management, which involves proactive care for specific patient risk groups, could offer a promising approach to tailor RPM to these groups. This study aims to (i) assess the perception of healthcare professionals and other stakeholders regarding the adoption and (ii) identify the barriers and facilitators for successfully implementing such a panel management approach. METHODS: In total, nineteen semi-structured interviews and two focus groups were conducted in the Netherlands. Three authors reviewed the audited transcripts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Strategies (CFIR) domains were used for the thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants (GPs, nurses, health insurers, project managers, and IT consultants) participated. Overall, a panel management approach to RPM in primary care was considered valuable by various stakeholders. Implementation barriers encompassed concerns about missing necessary risk factors for patient stratification, additional clinical and technical tasks for nurses, and reimbursement agreements. Facilitators included tailoring consultation frequency and early detection of at-risk patients, an implementation manager accountable for supervising project procedures and establishing agreements on assessing implementation metrics, and ambassador roles. CONCLUSION: Panel management could enhance proactive care and accurately identify which patients could benefit most from RPM to mitigate CVD risk. For successful implementation, we recommend having clear agreements on technical support, financial infrastructure and the criteria for measuring evaluation outcomes.

Population health interventions for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: a scoping review and RE-AIM evaluation of current practices.

Introduction: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are the leading cause of death in high-income countries and are largely attributable to modifiable risk factors. Population health management (PHM) can effectively identify patient subgroups at high risk of CMD and address missed opportunities for preventive disease management. Guided by the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this scoping review of PHM interventions targeting patients in primary care at increased risk of CMD aims to describe the reported aspects for successful implementation. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across 14 databases to identify papers published between 2000 and 2023, using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews. The RE-AIM framework was used to assess the implementation, documentation, and the population health impact score of the PHM interventions. Results: A total of 26 out of 1,100 studies were included, representing 21 unique PHM interventions. This review found insufficient reporting of most RE-AIM components. The RE-AIM evaluation showed that the included interventions could potentially reach a large audience and achieve their intended goals, but information on adoption and maintenance was often lacking. A population health impact score was calculated for six interventions ranging from 28 to 62%. Discussion: This review showed the promise of PHM interventions that could reaching a substantial number of participants and reducing CMD risk factors. However, to better assess the generalizability and scalability of these interventions there is a need for an improved assessment of adoption, implementation processes, and sustainability.