PAT I ENT MONI TORING
rather than wait for a costly, and unsafe, emergency admission.
Case Study 1: remote monitoring in community care The Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (LPT) Virtual Community Ward Service is a bespoke service, set up to deliver an integrated digital health solution for patients diagnosed with heart failure (HF) or chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD). The service was set up as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and is being delivered by the HF and Respiratory specialist teams within the Trust. The service aims to facilitate empowerment, self-management and activation of patients through a managed care model that supports people in their own home. Learnings from an initial 12-week pilot have established best practices that can form the foundation for embedding digital clinical pathways across its services and future preparedness plans, explained by Prof. Sudip Ghosh, clinical professor of community medicine, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, community providers were challenged in the way that they connected to patients. The imperative was to look at new ways to provide safe and responsive care for patients, by embedding technology within clinical pathways.
The specialist community cardiorespiratory team at LPT had successfully been using a remote monitoring / telemedicine platform, CliniTouch Vie (CTV), for the remote monitoring of patients.2
During the COVID-19
pandemic NHS providers had accelerated their use of remote monitoring to reduce face-to-face contact in line with national guidelines, and to ensure patient and staff safety. With positive willingness from clinicians, the use of this technology within the existing community Heart Failure and Respiratory Rehabilitation team within LPT was accelerated with the following aims: l Increase capacity of the existing clinical teams to cope with increased caseloads due to COVID-19 discharges.
l Reduce face-to-face contact between clinicians and patients (to minimise risk of COVID-19 infection).
l To maintain and, if possible, improve patient care for identified at risk groups. l Reduce demand for hospital admissions
Caseload size Respiratory
Heart Failure Total Table 1 42 l
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM
27.01.2020 564
908 1472
through more proactive care.
l Demonstrate ongoing sustainability and system change.
This project was developed rapidly in March 2020 to ensure continuity of service during the expected pandemic for COPD and HF individuals with complex health needs and a very urgent care need. The priority was to ensure they would have access to a team of skilled professionals, to provide the care they need to remain independent, while releasing capacity within the local healthcare system. Deployment started in early April 2020, with the official commencement date of 20 April 2020.
Outcome 1 - Increase capacity: Table 1 shows the position of clinical caseloads 12-weeks before the deployment of the technology, on the deployment date and at the end of the 12-week pilot review period.
During the pilot, caseload numbers varied significantly due to the COVID-19 caseload review process undertaken to position the teams to be able to rapidly accept additional patients into their caseloads. While the expected surge in COVID-19 patients did not occur, referral rates to the respiratory and HF services from primary and secondary care significantly reduced during the 12-week pilot as we responded to the pandemic.
Outcome 2 – Reduce face-to-face contact:
During this period, the number of face-to- face appointments also reduced:
20.04.2020 163
709 872
13.07.2020 315
784 1099
27 Jan – 19 April 19 April – 13 July
2133 1121
This reflects the reduction in community- based clinics, with 1:1s occurring through home visits and the deployment of telemedicine to support patients. l In the six weeks prior to deployment there were 550 home visits in an overall managed population of 872 patients.
l In the first six weeks after deployment there were 413 home visits in an overall managed population of 1,099 patients.
l During the last week of deployment only 4.4% of Heart Failure and 0% of COPD patients received a home visit.
One of the team’s respiratory clinicians commented: “This is the first time that I have used telehealth to monitor my COPD patients. I have found this an extremely valuable and resourceful tool to remotely manage complex patients in the community, especially within the midst of the deadly COVID-19 global health pandemic.” Learnings from this initiative are being used by LPT and its commissioners as the Trust redesigns all its services at a wider level. This is in response to COVID-19 and preparations for ongoing waves; the development of digital services generally in the NHS; and to inform future preparedness plans.
In terms of best practices, monitoring the speed at which patients’ results are reviewed by the clinician is important to ensure maximum benefit from the system and patient safety. This was a key criteria to ensure everyone gained from the initiative. Using the remote monitoring technology, the system uses approved clinical algorithms to give patients a risk rating based on their vital signs readings and patient questionnaire responses. The highest risk rating is red and of those questions that received a red risk rating during the trial period, (2,322 occasions), 98% were reviewed by clinical
APRIL 2021
©NIKCOA -
stock.adobe.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
