Key result
Advanced alerting algorithms significantly reduced the total time clinicians spent reviewing simulated heart failure telemonitoring caseloads compared to a simple weight-based alert algorithm (80 vs 149 minutes, p=0.038).
Why the study?
Does an advanced alert method reduce caseload review time compared to a simple alert method in clinicians monitoring heart failure patients?
RCT (n=16)
Open-label
Randomized string
No
Does an advanced alert method reduce caseload review time compared to a simple alert method in clinicians monitoring heart failure patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 80% vs 149%
p-value: p=0.038
Advanced alerting algorithms for home telemonitoring reduce clinician review time compared to simple weight-based rules, though inter-clinician agreement on actions remains low.
Advanced alerts may shorten HF telemonitoring review time; extends RCT efficiency data but leaves action standardization open.
BACKGROUND: Home telemonitoring (HTM) of chronic heart failure (HF) promises to improve care by timely indications when a patient's condition is worsening. Simple rules of sudden weight change have been demonstrated to generate many alerts with poor sensitivity. Trend alert algorithms and bio-impedance (a more sensitive marker of fluid change), should produce fewer false alerts and reduce workload. However, comparisons between such approaches on the decisions made and the time spent reviewing alerts has not been studied. METHODS: Using HTM data from an observational trial of 91 HF patients, a simulated telemonitoring station was created and used to present virtual caseloads to clinicians experienced with HF HTM systems. Clinicians were randomised to either a simple (i.e. an increase of 2 kg in the past 3 days) or advanced alert method (either a moving average weight algorithm or bio-impedance cumulative sum algorithm). RESULTS: In total 16 clinicians reviewed the caseloads, 8 randomised to a simple alert method and 8 to the advanced alert methods. Total time to review the caseloads was lower in the advanced arms than the simple arm (80 ± 42 vs. 149 ± 82 min) but agreements on actions between clinicians were low (Fleiss kappa 0.33 and 0.31) and despite having high sensitivity many alerts in the bio-impedance arm were not considered to need further action. CONCLUSION: Advanced alerting algorithms with higher specificity are likely to reduce the time spent by clinicians and increase the percentage of time spent on changes rated as most meaningful. Work is needed to present bio-impedance alerts in a manner which is intuitive for clinicians.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gyllensten et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (telemonitoring management) (n=16). Advanced alert algorithms (weight-MACD or impedance-CUSUM) vs. Simple alert algorithm (weight rule-of-thumb) was evaluated on Total time spent reviewing the caseloads (minutes) (p=0.038). Advanced alerting algorithms significantly reduced the total time clinicians spent reviewing simulated heart failure telemonitoring caseloads compared to a simple weight-based alert algorithm (80 vs 149 minutes, p=0.038).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: