No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of home telemonitoring on health service use and quality of life in patients with severe chronic lung disease.DesignRandomised crossover trial with 6 months of standard best practice clinical care (control group) and 6 months with the addition of telemonitoring.Participants68 patients with chronic lung disease (38 with COPD; 30 with chronic respiratory failure due to other causes), who had a hospital admission for an exacerbation within 6 months of randomisation and either used long-term oxygen therapy or had an arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) of <90% on air during the previous admission. Individuals received telemonitoring (second-generation system) via broadband link to a hospital-based care team.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was time to first hospital admission for an acute exacerbation. Secondary outcome measures were hospital admissions, general practitioner (GP) consultations and home visits by nurses, quality of life measured by EuroQol-5D and hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale, and self-efficacy score (Stanford).ResultsMedian (IQR) number of days to first admission showed no difference between the two groups—77 (114) telemonitoring, 77.5 (61) control (p=0.189). Hospital admission rate at 6 months increased (0.63 telemonitoring vs 0.32 control p=0.026). Home visits increased during telemonitoring; GP consultations were unchanged. Self-efficacy fell, while HAD depression score improved marginally during telemonitoring.ConclusionsTelemonitoring added to standard care did not alter time to next acute hospital admission, increased hospital admissions and home visits overall, and did not improve quality of life in chronic respiratory patients.Trial registration numberNCT02180919 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Risk management is an important aspect of home ventilation (HV). We examined the nature of calls to a home support helpline to identify patient/equipment problems and strategies to minimise risk for patients, healthcare teams and manufacturers.From 1,211 adult and paediatric patients with neuromuscular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chest wall disease receiving HV, all calls to a dedicated respiratory support telephone hotline between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006 were analysed.1,199 patients received noninvasive ventilation, 12 tracheostomy ventilation; 149 had two ventilators for 24-h ventilator dependency. There was a mean of 528 daytime calls per month and 14 calls a month at night. Following 188 calls, a home visit was performed; these identified a technical problem that could either be solved in the patient's home in 64% or required replacement or new parts in 22% of cases. In 25 calls in which no mechanical fault was identified, 13 patients were either found to be unwell or required hospital admission.Patients using HV have a substantial requirement for assistance, with most technical problems being resolved simply. Where no fault can be found during an equipment check, the patient themselves may be unwell and should receive early clinical evaluation. The patient may have mistaken clinical deterioration for an equipment problem.

From a total of 1211 adult & paediatric patients receiving home ventilation (HV) supervised by Royal Brompton Hospital between 1/1/06 and 30/6/06 the respiratory support team received an average of 528 daytime calls/month and 14/month out of hours calls to a telephone helpline.Diagnoses included: neuromuscular disease, chest wall disease, COPD, obesity hypoventilation and non-COPD lung disease. 99% received non-invasive ventilation, 1% tracheostomy ventilation. 149 required 2 ventilators for near 24 hour ventilator dependency, the remainder were classified as 1 (17%) 2 (33%) & 3 (50%) night dependency as were able to breathe spontaneously for this period. 50% used bilevel positive pressure ventilators, 48% inspiratory pressure ventilators and 2% volume ventilators. In 188 calls a home visit was carried out because of ventilator or associated equipment-related problems. Despite regular equipment servicing programme, in 188 patients there was a technical problem with the equipment which was solved in the patient's home in 64% or required replacement / parts in 22%. Of the 25 calls in which no fault was found, 13 patients were unwell at home or required hospital admission, 2 patients died within 1 month of identification of no fault. No patient was admitted as a result of technical failure of equipment.Conclusion: There is a significant workload associated with supporting HV patients. Patients / carers all received standard competency training before discharge but other calls may be reduced by a more flexible problem-solving approach. Importantly, reports in which no technical fault is found may indicate deteriorating health in the patient and require close follow-up.