Remote patient monitoring for COVID-19 patients: comparisons and framework for reporting

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has challenged health services throughout the world in terms of hospital capacity and put staff and vulnerable populations at risk of infection. In the face of these challenges, many health providers have implemented remote patient monitoring (RPM) of COVID-19 patients in their own homes. However systematic reviews of the literature on these implementations have revealed wide variations in how RPM is implemented; along with variations in particulars of RPM reported on, making comparison and evaluation difficult. A review of reported items is warranted to develop a framework of key items to enhance reporting consistency. The aims of this review of remote monitoring for COVID-19 patients are twofold: (1) to facilitate comparison between RPM implementations by tabulating information and values under common domains. (2) to develop a reporting framework to enhance reporting consistency. METHOD: A review of the literature for RPM for COVID-19 patients was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The Medline database was searched for articles published between 2020 to February 2023 and studies reporting on items with sufficient detail to compare one with another were included. Relevant data was extracted and synthesized by the lead author. Quality appraisal was not conducted as the the articles considered were evaluated as informational reports of clinical implementations rather than as studies designed to answer a research question. RESULTS: From 305 studies retrieved, 23 studies were included in the review: fourteen from the US, two from the UK and one each from Africa, Ireland, China, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Italy. Sixteen generally reported items were identified, shown with the percentage of studies reporting in brackets: Reporting Period (82%), Rationale (100%), Patients (100%), Medical Team (91%) Provider / Infrastructure (91%), Communications Platform (100%), Patient Equipment (100%), Training (48%), Markers (96%), Frequency of prompt / Input (96%),Thresholds (82%), Discharge (61%), Enrolled (96%), Alerts/Escalated (78%), Patient acceptance (43%), and Patient Adherence (52%). Whilst some studies reported on patient training and acceptance, just one reported on staff training and none on staff acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in reported items were found. Pending the establishment of a robust set of reporting guidelines, we propose a reporting framework consisting of eighteen reporting items under the following four domains: Context, Technology, Process and Metrics. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09526-0.