Sicker patients, chronic understaffing, high rates of clinician burnout, higher operational expenses paired with less income.
All these realities, and more, are straining providers, patients, and hospital systems across the country. At the same time, we are in an era where transformative technologies, such as wearables and continuous remote monitoring, have the potential to shift healthcare from a reactive to proactive model.1 At Medtronic, innovations in medical technology have led to new and expanded options for continuous patient monitoring.
Below are five data-supported ways that continuous remote patient monitoring is impactful.
1. Improved patient satisfaction
A hospital stay can be an uncertain and tense time for patients and their loved ones. Connected tethered devices can be uncomfortable to the patient, restricting movement, lights and alarms can be distressing, while intermittent vital sign monitoring can be disruptive, especially during overnight hours. Wearable continuous remote patient monitoring systems allow for collection of multiple vital signs without lights, noises, or cords by employing sensors that adhere to the skin, allowing for unobstructed movement.2,3 Recent studies have observed that use of continuous remote monitoring reduces the amount of time spent on vital sign monitoring, while providing more time for other patient-provider interactions and care activities, which may contribute to a more proactive care environment.4
In addition, patients have reported feeling safer while being monitored using a continuous remote patient monitor5,6
2. Improved in-hospital outcomes
Abnormal vital signs are an indication of clinical deterioration, with early detection and response considered a key element to avoid or limit further worsening.7 In addition to being disruptive to patients, especially overnight, intermittent vital sign monitoring can be inaccurate, incomplete, and miss changes in physiological parameters that occur in-between monitoring.7-9 Further, vital sign monitoring takes up clinician time, and intermittent checks may be missed at times of understaffing, which has been associated with more negative outcomes.4,10-12
Continuous remote monitoring can allow for early detection of clinical deterioration, which can support timely intervention and avoid or limit poor clinical outcomes.10 Meta-analyses have found that continuous remote patient monitoring has the potential to facilitate early detection of clinical deterioration and reduce ICU transfers, rapid response activations, complications, and mortality.13,14
3. Decreased administrative burden
Clinicians can spend a notable amount of time on administrative tasks, including charting vital signs.10 By integrating into existing hospital systems, technology can help reduce administrative burden and enhance the patient and clinician experience by simplifying workflows and allowing more time for meaningful patient care. Clinicians see the benefit of continuous remote monitoring platforms, with one survey of clinicians reporting over 85% of respondents giving preference for wireless monitors over tethered systems, and the majority of respondents believing that continuous remote monitoring could provide earlier detection of clinical deterioration, while decreasing resuscitation and in-hospital mortality.15
4. Trending and AI
Monitoring of vital signs is used as an indication of a patient’s overall health status, which requires identification and interpretation of trends within the data to effectively respond to signs of clinical deterioration. Integration of AI into the continuous remote monitoring platform has the potential to provide unique and individualized insights into patient health and recovery by providing information on vital sign trending, which may allow clinicians to provide more proactive care and initiate timely interventions, to improve patient safety and outcomes.16
5. Complete Transition from Hospital-to-Home
Increase in patient complexity, surgeries being completed outside the operating room or with same-day discharge, and high healthcare costs means that more patients are being discharged when they may still be sick or in early recovery, posing a safety risk.17 Technologies that allow for continuous monitoring of patients from hospital to home can provide seamless care and allow for earlier detection of decline than without monitoring. Further, remote patient monitoring at-home can provide a feeling of additional safety for patients, with one meta-analysis showing improved quality of life measures for patients who received monitoring at-home.18
Conclusion
The value of continuous remote patient monitoring is multi-fold, with patients feeling safer, earlier identification of patient deterioration, and reduced administrative burden while receiving unique physiological insights for clinicians*. Medtronic has a comprehensive solution, HealthCast™, that includes a multi-parameter wearable sensor, a remote monitoring system connecting patient data directly into the EMR, and full-service implementation that can be implemented today.
* Based on studies using technologies with the same or similar features as HealthCast™ patient monitoring systems.
References
1. Guarducci S, Jayousi S, Caputo S, Mucchi L. Key fundamentals and examples of sensors for human health: wearable, non-continuous, and non-contact monitoring devices. Sensors. 2025;25(2):556.
2. Boatin AA, Wylie BJ, Goldfarb I, et al. Wireless vital sign monitoring in pregnant women: a functionality and acceptability study. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2016;22(7):564-571.
3. Weenk M, van Goor H, Frietman B, et al. Continuous monitoring of vital signs using wearable devices on the general ward: pilot study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2017;5(7):e7208.
4. Sigvardt E, Grønbaek KK, Jepsen ML, et al. Workload associated with manual assessment of vital signs as compared with continuous wireless monitoring. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. Feb 2024;68(2):274-279. doi:10.1111/aas.14333
5. Downey C, Randell R, Brown J, Jayne DG. Continuous versus intermittent vital signs monitoring using a wearable, wireless patch in patients admitted to surgical wards: pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2018;20(12):e10802.
6. Leenen JP, Ardesch V, Kalkman CJ, Schoonhoven L, Patijn GA. Impact of wearable wireless continuous vital sign monitoring in abdominal surgical patients: before–after study. BJS open. 2024;8(1):zrad128.
7. Pedersen NE, Rasmussen LS, Petersen JA, Gerds TA, Østergaard D, Lippert A. A critical assessment of early warning score records in 168,000 patients. J Clin Monit Comput. Feb 2018;32(1):109-116. doi:10.1007/s10877-017-0003-5
8. Van Leuvan CH, Mitchell I. Missed opportunities? An observational study of vital sign measurements. Critical Care and Resuscitation. 2008;10(2):111-115.
9. Bauer JC, John E, Wood CL, Plass D, Richardson D. Data Entry Automation Improves Cost, Quality, Performance, and Job Satisfaction in a Hospital Nursing Unit. J Nurs Adm. Jan 2020;50(1):34-39. doi:10.1097/nna.0000000000000836
10. Yadav A, Dandu H, Parchani G, et al. Early detection of deteriorating patients in general wards through continuous contactless vital signs monitoring. Frontiers in Medical Technology. 2024;6:1436034.
11. Griffiths P, Ball J, Bloor K, et al. Nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs and mortality in hospitals: retrospective longitudinal observational study. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2018;6(38)
12. Redfern OC, Griffiths P, Maruotti A, Saucedo AR, Smith GB. The association between nurse staffing levels and the timeliness of vital signs monitoring: a retrospective observational study in the UK. BMJ open. 2019;9(9):e032157.
13. Areia C, Biggs C, Santos M, et al. The impact of wearable continuous vital sign monitoring on deterioration detection and clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care. 2021;25:1-17.
14. Sun L, Joshi M, Khan SN, Ashrafian H, Darzi A. Clinical impact of multi-parameter continuous non-invasive monitoring in hospital wards: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2020;113(6):217-224.
15. Michard F, Thiele RH, Saugel B, et al. Wireless wearables for postoperative surveillance on surgical wards: a survey of 1158 anaesthesiologists in Western Europe and the USA. BJA open. 2022;1:100002.
16. van den Eijnden MAC, van der Stam JA, Bouwman RA, et al. Machine Learning for Postoperative Continuous Recovery Scores of Oncology Patients in Perioperative Care with Data from Wearables. Sensors (Basel). May 2 2023;23(9)doi:10.3390/s23094455
17. Ardon A, Chadha R, George III J. Post-discharge Care and Monitoring: What’s new, What’s Controversial. Current Anesthesiology Reports. 2024;14(2):299-305.
18. Dawes AJ, Lin AY, Varghese C, Russell MM, Lin AY. Mobile health technology for remote home monitoring after surgery: a meta-analysis. Br J Surg. Nov 11 2021;108(11):1304-1314. doi:10.1093/bjs/znab323