Remote Patient Monitoring at Home in Patients With COVID-19: Narrative Review.
Justien Cornelis, Wendy Christiaens, Christophe de Meester and 1 others
PMID 39287362WHAT IT FOUND
Remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients at home did not significantly reduce hospital visits, readmissions, length of stay, or mortality compared with usual care.
Patients generally felt reassured by the approach, but evidence remains too heterogeneous to confirm clinical benefits or cost savings.
Key findings
01There is no statistically significant evidence that remote patient monitoring in COVID-19 patients effectively reduces ED visits, hospital readmissions, length of stay, or mortality.
02The review included 164 studies covering 248,431 patients, but none of the original studies had a randomized control group, and only three small RCTs were identified in updates.
03Patients generally reported positive experiences with remote monitoring, primarily feeling reassured, though satisfaction data may be skewed by self-selection bias.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
No formal quality assessment was performed. Extreme heterogeneity in patient populations, RPM interventions, and outcome definitions prevented meta-analysis. Very few RCTs were available; most evidence came from observational studies with high risk of bias. Cost and savings claims were largely based on expert opinion or poorly described methodologies. Patient satisfaction data were subject to self-selection bias, as only some patients responded. Vaccination status and changing pandemic waves were not consistently accounted for across studies.
Declared interests
None declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume remote patient monitoring is proven to reduce hospital admissions or costs for COVID-19 patients. The evidence is largely observational and heterogeneous, with no significant benefits shown in the few available trials, and claims of cost savings lack rigorous methodological support.