BACKGROUND: Efficiently caring for frail older adults will become an increasingly important part of health care reform;telemonitoring within homes may be an answer to improve outcomes. This study sought to assess differences in hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits among older adults using telemonitoring vs usual care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed among adults older than 60 years at high risk for rehospitalization. Participants were randomized to telemonitoring (with daily input) or to patient-driven usual care. Telemonitoring was accomplished by daily biometrics,symptom reporting, and videoconference. The primary outcome was a composite end point of hospitalizations and ED visits in the 12 months following enrollment. Secondary end points included hospitalizations,ED visits, and total hospital days. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS:Two hundred five participants were enrolled,with a mean age of 80.3 years. The primary outcome of hospitalizations and ED visits did not differ between the telemonitoring group (63.7%) and the usual care group(57.3%) (P=.35). No differences were observed in secondary end points, including hospitalizations, ED visits,and total hospital days. No significant group differences in hospitalizations and ED visits were found between the pre-enrollment period vs the post-enrollment period. Mortality was higher in the telemonitoring group (14.7%)than in the usual care group (3.9%) (P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients, telemonitoring did not result in fewer hospitalizations or ED visits. Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant differences between the telemonitoring group and the usual care group.The cause of greater mortality in the telemonitoring group is unknown.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Efficiently caring for frail older adults will become an increasingly important part of health care reform;telemonitoring within homes may be an answer to improve outcomes. This study sought to assess differences in hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits among older adults using telemonitoring vs usual care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed among adults older than 60 years at high risk for rehospitalization. Participants were randomized to telemonitoring (with daily input) or to patient-driven usual care. Telemonitoring was accomplished by daily biometrics,symptom reporting, and videoconference. The primary outcome was a composite end point of hospitalizations and ED visits in the 12 months following enrollment. Secondary end points included hospitalizations,ED visits, and total hospital days. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred five participants were enrolled,with a mean age of 80.3 years. The primary outcome of hospitalizations and ED visits did not differ between the telemonitoring group (63.7%) and the usual care group(57.3%) (P=.35). No differences were observed in secondary end points, including hospitalizations, ED visits,and total hospital days. No significant group differences in hospitalizations and ED visits were found between the pre-enrollment period vs the post-enrollment period. Mortality was higher in the telemonitoring group (14.7%)than in the usual care group (3.9%) (P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients, telemonitoring did not result in fewer hospitalizations or ED visits. Secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant differences between the telemonitoring group and the usual care group.The cause of greater mortality in the telemonitoring group is unknown.
Authors: Ruben Amarasingham; Billy J Moore; Ying P Tabak; Mark H Drazner; Christopher A Clark; Song Zhang; W Gary Reed; Timothy S Swanson; Ying Ma; Ethan A Halm Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Francesc Formiga; David Chivite; Ana Solé; Nicolas Manito; Josep Maria Ramon; Ramon Pujol Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2005-12-13 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Paul Y Takahashi; Gregory J Hanson; Jennifer L Pecina; Robert J Stroebel; Rajeev Chaudhry; Nilay D Shah; James M Naessens Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sarah J Crane; Ericka E Tung; Gregory J Hanson; Stephen Cha; Rajeev Chaudhry; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Benjavan Upatising; Douglas L Wood; Walter K Kremers; Sharon L Christ; Yuehwern Yih; Gregory J Hanson; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Mintu P Turakhia; Hein Heidbuchel; Yu-Feng Hu; Lin Yee Chen; Jean-Philippe Couderc; Edmond M Cronin; Jerry D Estep; Lars Grieten; Deirdre A Lane; Reena Mehra; Alex Page; Rod Passman; Jonathan P Piccini; Ewa Piotrowicz; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Pyotr G Platonov; Antonio Luiz Ribeiro; Robert E Rich; Andrea M Russo; David Slotwiner; Jonathan S Steinberg; Emma Svennberg Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-02-12
Authors: Amanda K Hall; Virginia Dodd; Amy Harris; Kara McArthur; Clifford Dacso; Lara M Colton Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Susan E Yount; Nan Rothrock; Michael Bass; Jennifer L Beaumont; Deborah Pach; Thomas Lad; Jyoti Patel; Maria Corona; Rebecca Weiland; Katherine Del Ciello; David Cella Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Rashid L Bashshur; Gary W Shannon; Brian R Smith; Dale C Alverson; Nina Antoniotti; William G Barsan; Noura Bashshur; Edward M Brown; Molly J Coye; Charles R Doarn; Stewart Ferguson; Jim Grigsby; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Joseph C Kvedar; Jonathan Linkous; Ronald C Merrell; Thomas Nesbitt; Ronald Poropatich; Karen S Rheuban; Jay H Sanders; Andrew R Watson; Ronald S Weinstein; Peter Yellowlees Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 3.536