Development and Implementation of an Acute Kidney Injury Remote Patient Monitoring Program: Research Letter.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors have a dynamic posthospital course which warrants close monitoring. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) could be used to improve quality and efficiency of AKI survivor care. Objective: The objective of this report was to describe the development and preliminary feasibility of an AKI RPM program launched in October 2021. Setting: Academic medical center. Patients: Patients enrolled in the AKI RPM program were those who experienced AKI during a hospitalization and underwent nephrology consultation. Measurements/Methods: At enrollment, patients were provided with home monitoring technology and underwent weekly laboratory assessments. Nurses evaluated the data daily and adhered to prespecified protocols for management and escalation of care if needed. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled in AKI RPM in the first 5 months. Median duration of program participation was 36 (31, 40) days. Eight patients (40%) experienced an unplanned readmission, or an emergency department visit, half (N = 4) of which were attributed to AKI and related circumstances. Of the 9 postgraduation survey respondents, all were satisfied with the RPM program and 89% would recommend RPM to other patients with similar health conditions. Limitations: Acute kidney injury RPM was made possible by the existing infrastructure in our integrated health system and the robust resources available in the Mayo Clinic Center for Digital Health. Such infrastructure may not be universally available which could limit scale and generalizability of such a program. Conclusions: Remote patient monitoring can offer a unique opportunity to bridge the care transition from hospital to home and increase access to quality care for the AKI survivors.

Les survivants d'un épisode d'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) ont un parcours post-hospitalier dynamique qui justifie une surveillance étroite. La télésurveillance des patients (TSP) pourrait être employée pour améliorer la qualité et l'efficacité des soins pour les survivants de l'IRA. Objectif: L'objectif de ce rapport était de décrire le développement et la faisabilité préliminaire d'un programme de TSP-IRA (télésurveillance des patients atteints d'IRA) en octobre 2021. Cadre: Centre médical universitaire. Sujets: Les patients inscrits au programme de TSP-IRA étaient des patients qui avaient vécu un épisode d'IRA lors d'une hospitalisation et obtenu une consultation en néphrologie. Mesures et méthodologie: Au moment de l'inclusion, les patients ont reçu un dispositif de surveillance à domicile et se sont soumis à des évaluations de laboratoire hebdomadaires. Les infirmières ont évalué les données quotidiennement et ont respecté des protocoles prédéfinis pour la gestion et l'escalade des soins si nécessaire. Résultats: Vingt patients ont été inclus dans le programme de TSP-IRA au cours des cinq premiers mois. La durée médiane de participation au programme était de 36 (31, 40) jours. Huit patients (40%) ont dû être réadmis de façon non planifiée ou ont dû faire une visite aux urgences; pour la moitié d'entre eux (N = 4) en raison de l'IRA et de circonstances connexes. Parmi les neuf répondants qui ont répondu au sondage à la complétion du programme, tous se sont dits satisfaits du programme de TSP et 89% le recommanderaient à d'autres patients ayant des problèmes de santé similaires. Limites: Le programme de TSP-IRA a été rendu possible grâce à l'infrastructure existante dans notre système de santé intégré et aux ressources robustes disponibles au Mayo Clinic Center for Digital Health. Une telle infrastructure n'est peut-être pas universellement disponible, ce qui pourrait limiter l'ampleur et la généralisabilité d'un tel programme. Conclusion: La TSP peut offrir une occasion unique de faciliter la transition des soins entre l'hôpital et le domicile et d'accroître l'accès à des soins de qualité pour les survivants d'un épisode d'IRA.

Telehealth versus face-to-face visits: A comprehensive outpatient perspective-based cohort study of patients with kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Telenephrology has become an important health care delivery modality during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known about patient perspectives on the quality of care provided via telenephrology compared to face-to-face visits. We aimed to use objective data to study patients' perspectives on outpatient nephrology care received via telenephrology (phone and video) versus face-to-face visits. METHODS: We retrospectively studied adults who received care in the outpatient Nephrology & Hypertension division at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from March to July 2020. We used a standardized survey methodology to evaluate patient satisfaction. The primary outcome was the percent of patients who responded with a score of good (4) or very good (5) on a 5-point Likert scale on survey questions that asked their perspectives on access to their nephrologist, relationship with care provider, their opinions on the telenephrology technology, and their overall assessment of the care received. Wilcoxon rank sum tests and chi-square tests were used as appropriate to compare telenephrology versus face-to-face visits. RESULTS: 3,486 of the patient encounters were face-to-face, 808 phone and 317 video visits. 443 patients responded to satisfaction surveys, and 21% of these had telenephrology encounters. Established patients made up 79.6% of telenephrology visits and 60.9% of face-to-face visits. There was no significant difference in patient perceived access to health care, satisfaction with their care provider, or overall quality of care between patients cared for via telenephrology versus face-to-face. Patient satisfaction was also equally high. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction was equally high amongst those patients seen face-to-face or via telenephrology.

Provider Perspectives and Clinical Outcomes with Inpatient Telenephrology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the dramatic increase in the provision of virtual nephrology care, only anecdotal reports of outcomes without comparators to usual care exist in the literature. This study aimed to provide objective determination of clinical noninferiority of hybrid (telenephrology plus face-to-face) versus standard (face-to-face) inpatient nephrology care. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This retrospective study compares objective outcomes in patients who received inpatient hybrid care versus standard nephrology care at two Mayo Clinic Health System community hospitals. Outcomes were then additionally compared with those patients receiving care at another Mayo Clinic Health System site where only standard care is available. Hospitalized adults who had nephrology consults from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 were considered. Regression was used to assess 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, readmissions, odds of being prescribed dialysis, and hospital transfers. Sensitivity analysis was performed using patients who had ≥50% of their care encounters via telenephrology. Structured surveys were used to understand the perspectives of non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists. RESULTS: In total, 850 patients were included. Measured outcomes that included the number of hospital transfers (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 3.82) and 30-day readmissions (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.06), among others, did not differ significantly between controls and patients in the general cohort. Telenephrologists (n=11) preferred video consults (82%) to phone for communication. More than half (64%) of telenephrologists spent less time on telenephrology compared with standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers (n=21) were very satisfied (48%) and satisfied (29%) with telenephrology response time and felt telenephrology was as safe as standard care (67%), while providing them enough information to make patient care decisions (76%). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for in-hospital nephrology consults were not significantly different comparing hybrid care versus standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists had favorable opinions of telenephrology and most perceived it is as safe and effective as standard care. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2022_04_11_CJN13441021.mp3.