Background During the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, routine antenatal care was disrupted, and pregnant women positive for COVID-19 were at increased risk of caesarean section, intensive care admission or neonatal unit admission for their baby. Virtual care and telehealth can reduce barriers to care and improve maternity outcomes, and adoption has been encouraged by health authorities in the United Kingdom. Methods Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals Trust deployed a flexible maternity virtual ward (MVW) service using the Current Health platform to care for pregnant women during the pandemic. Patients were monitored either intermittently with finger pulse oximetry or continuously with a wearable device. We outline the MVW technology, intervention and staffing model, triage criteria and patient feedback, as an example of an operational model for other institutions. Results Between October 2021 and February 2022, 429 patients were referred, of which 228 were admitted to the MVW. Total bed-days was 1,182, mean length of stay was 6 days (SD 2.3, range 1–14 days). Fifteen (6.6%) required hospital admission and one (0.4%) critical care. There were no deaths. Feedback alluded to feelings of increased safety, comfort, and ease with the technology. Conclusions The MVW offered a safety net to pregnant women positive for COVID-19. It provided reassurance for staff, while relieving pressures on infrastructure. When setting up similar services in future, attention should be given to identifying clinical champions, triage criteria, technology and alarm selection, and establishing flexible escalation pathways that can adapt to changing patterns of disease.

Background Virtual care (VC) and remote patient monitoring programs were deployed widely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deployments were heterogeneous and evolved as the pandemic progressed, complicating subsequent attempts to quantify their impact. The unique arrangement of the US Military Health System (MHS) enabled direct comparison between facilities that did and did not implement a standardized VC program. The VC program enrolled patients symptomatic for COVID-19 or at risk for severe disease. Patients’ vital signs were continuously monitored at home with a wearable device (Current Health). A central team monitored vital signs and conducted daily or twice-daily reviews (the nurse-to-patient ratio was 1:30). Objective Our goal was to describe the operational model of a VC program for COVID-19, evaluate its financial impact, and detail its clinical outcomes. Methods This was a retrospective difference-in-differences (DiD) evaluation that compared 8 military treatment facilities (MTFs) with and 39 MTFs without a VC program. Tricare Prime beneficiaries diagnosed with COVID-19 (Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group 177 or International Classification of Diseases–10 codes U07.1/07.2) who were eligible for care within the MHS and aged 21 years and or older between December 2020 and December 2021 were included. Primary outcomes were length of stay and associated cost savings; secondary outcomes were escalation to physical care from home, 30-day readmissions after VC discharge, adherence to the wearable, and alarms per patient-day. Results A total of 1838 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to an MTF with a VC program of 3988 admitted to the MHS. Of these patients, 237 (13%) were enrolled in the VC program. The DiD analysis indicated that centers with the program had a 12% lower length of stay averaged across all COVID-19 patients, saving US $2047 per patient. The total cost of equipping, establishing, and staffing the VC program was estimated at US $3816 per day. Total net savings were estimated at US $2.3 million in the first year of the program across the MHS. The wearables were activated by 231 patients (97.5%) and were monitored through the Current Health platform for a total of 3474 (median 7.9, range 3.2-16.5) days. Wearable adherence was 85% (IQR 63%-94%). Patients triggered a median of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-5.2) vital sign alarms per patient per day; 203 (85.7%) were monitored at home and then directly discharged from VC; 27 (11.4%) were escalated to a physical hospital bed as part of their initial admission. There were no increases in 30-day readmissions or emergency department visits. Conclusions Monitored patients were adherent to the wearable device and triggered a manageable number of alarms/day for the monitoring–team-to-patient ratio. Despite only enrolling 13% of COVID-19 patients at centers where it was available, the program offered substantial savings averaged across all patients in those centers without adversely affecting clinical outcomes.

The importance of vital sign monitoring to detect deterioration increases during healthcare at home. Continuous monitoring with wearables increases assessment frequency but may create information overload for clinicians. The goal of this work was to demonstrate the impact of vital sign observation frequency and alarm settings on alarms in a real-world dataset. Vital signs were collected from 76 patients admitted to healthcare at home programs using the Current Health (CH) platform; its wearable continuously measured respiratory rate (RR), pulse rate (PR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Total alarms, alarm rate, patient rate, and detection time were calculated for three alarm rulesets to detect changes in SpO2, PR, and RR under four vital sign observation frequencies and four window sizes for the alarm algorithms’ median filter. Total alarms ranged from 65 to 3113. The alarm rate and early detection increased with the observation frequency for all alarm rulesets. Median filter windows reduced alarms triggered by normal fluctuations in vital signs without compromising the granularity of time between assessments. Frequent assessments enabled with continuous monitoring support early intervention but need to pair with settings that balance sensitivity, specificity, clinical risk, and provider capacity to respond when a patient is home to minimize clinician burden.

ObjectiveTo describe the healthcare provider (HCP) experience of launching a COVID-19 remote patient monitoring (CRPM) program during the global COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs involved in deploying the CRPM pilot program in the Military Health System (MHS) from June to December 2020. Interviews were thematically audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive approach. We then deductively mapped themes from interviews to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ResultsWe identified the following main themes mapped to CFIR domains listed in parentheses: external and internal environments (outer and inner settings), processes around implementation (implementation process domain), the right people (individuals domain), and program characteristics (innovation domain). Participants believed that buy-in from leadership and HCPs was critical for successful program implementation. HCP participants showed qualities of clinical champions and believed in the CRPM program.ConclusionThe MHS deployed a successful remote patient monitoring pilot program during the global COVID-19 pandemic. HCPs found the CRPM program and the technology enabling the program to be acceptable, feasible, and usable. HCP participants exhibited characteristics of clinical champions. Leadership engagement was the most often-cited key factor for successful program implementation.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented demand on NHS infrastructure. Virtual wards (VW) were created in response, using technology to monitor patients remotely. Their implementation required new systems of staffing, escalation, risk management and information governance. The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals Foundation Trust offered an example of a highly successful VW. It cared for 852 patients in its first year of operation, providing 24/7 nursing cover, supported by pharmacists and junior doctors, daily consultant-led ward rounds and virtual visits. The remote care platform collected continuous vital sign observations and generated custom alarms. The care team triaged, then escalated to nurse-specialists or consultants as required. Patients reported increased confidence and relief at earlier discharge. Staff highlighted the benefits of working from home, even if isolating or shielding. Challenges included developing awareness of the new service, overcoming concerns around increased workload and transitioning from emergency to long-term funding. The ward subsequently expanded from COVID-19 to nine other use cases.