Testing the Feasibility of Sensor-Based Home Health Monitoring (TEC4Home) to Support the Convalescence of Patients With Heart Failure: Pre-Post Study

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) can be affected by disabling symptoms and low quality of life. Furthermore, they may frequently need to visit the emergency department or be hospitalized due to their condition deteriorating. Home telemonitoring can play a role in tracking symptoms, reducing hospital visits, and improving quality of life. Objective: Our objective was to conduct a feasibility study of a home health monitoring (HHM) solution for patients with HF in British Columbia, Canada, to prepare for conducting a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Patients with HF were recruited from 3 urban hospitals and provided with HHM technology for 60 days of monitoring postdischarge. Participants were asked to monitor their weight, blood pressure, and heart rate and to answer symptomology questions via Bluetooth sensors and a tablet computer each day. A monitoring nurse received this data and monitored the patient's condition. In our evaluation, the primary outcome was the combination of unscheduled emergency department revisits of discharged participants or death within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included 90-day hospital readmissions, patient quality of life (as measured by Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Scale), self-efficacy (as measured by European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale 9), end-user experience, and health system cost-effectiveness including cost reduction and hospital bed capacity. In this feasibility study, we also tested the recruitment strategy, clinical protocols, evaluation framework, and data collection methods. Results: Seventy participants were enrolled into this trial. Participant engagement to monitoring was measured at 94% (N=70; ie, data submitted 56/60 days on average). Our evaluation framework allowed us to collect sound data, which also showed encouraging trends: a 79% reduction of emergency department revisits post monitoring, an 87% reduction in hospital readmissions, and a 60% reduction in the median hospital length of stay (n=36). Cost of hospitalization for participants decreased by 71%, and emergency department visit costs decreased by 58% (n=30). Overall health system costs for our participants showed a 56% reduction post monitoring (n=30). HF-specific quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Scale) scores showed a significant increase of 101% (n=35) post monitoring (P<.001). General quality of life (Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey) improved by 19% (n=35) on the mental component score (P<.001) and 19% (n=35) on the physical component score (P=.02). Self-efficacy improved by 6% (n=35). Interviews with participants revealed that they were satisfied overall with the monitoring program and its usability, and participants reported being more engaged, educated, and involved in their self-management. Conclusions: Results from this small-sample feasibility study suggested that our HHM intervention can be beneficial in supporting patients post discharge. Additionally, key insights from the trial allowed us to refine our methods and procedures, such as shifting our recruitment methods to in-patient wards and increasing our scope of data collection. Although these findings are promising, a more rigorous trial design is required to test the true efficacy of the intervention. The results from this feasibility trial will inform our next step as we proceed with a randomized controlled trial across British Columbia.