Home / Health / Remote Patient Monitoring Fails Serious Infections
Remote Patient Monitoring Fails Serious Infections
12 Jun
Summary
- Remote monitoring increased readmissions for seniors treated for infections.
- Study found no increase in days at home for sepsis patients using remote care.
- Medicare promotes remote monitoring, but data on effectiveness is limited.
Wearable technology and smartphone communication have enabled hospitals to experiment with releasing patients earlier, remotely monitoring them as they recuperate from home. This approach has been shown to work for some conditions, but a new study indicates remote monitoring might not be as helpful in other serious illnesses. Seniors treated for sepsis, flu, and COVID-19 infections were more likely to require readmission to a hospital when they tried to recuperate at home under remote monitoring. The research, published on June 11, 2026, found that remote therapeutic monitoring did not increase days at home after discharge for any patients who developed sepsis from serious infections.
More than 3 million Americans are hospitalized annually for serious infections. Patients who survive sepsis or lower respiratory tract infections experience a 1-year death rate of approximately 40%, and over 60% of hospital readmissions are driven by infections and worsening of heart and lung disease. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been promoting remote monitoring, and its use among Medicare patients increased tenfold between 2019 and 2022. Health systems, insurers, and policymakers want to reduce hospital readmissions, and most patients prefer to recover safely at home.
However, for the new study, researchers tested remote monitoring among nearly 1,300 patients treated for sepsis or lower respiratory tract infections across 19 hospitals. The goal was to keep patients out of the hospital for three months following their discharge. Patients assigned to remote monitoring filled out twice-weekly questionnaires tracking their symptoms. Nurses reviewed these questionnaires and reached out to patients whose responses indicated health problems. Considering all patients, remote monitoring did not perform better than usual care. Among patients 65 and older, remote monitoring increased the odds of readmission by 33% to 44%.
These findings suggest that the CMS should reassess the role of remote therapeutic monitoring in reducing readmissions and underscore the value of tailoring remote monitoring in post-acute care for serious infections. The study highlights the challenges of implementing and scaling remote monitoring across health systems and among patients recovering from serious illness who are managing complex care needs.
