A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Post-ICU Telehealth Care Model (WFIT)

Rita N. Bakhru, Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Lori Flores, Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Diseases, and.
J Maycee Cain, Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Diseases, and.
Valesha Province, Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Jason Fanning, Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and.
Himanshu Rawal, Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Bristol Health Medical Group, Bristol Hospital, Bristol, Connecticut.
Richa Bundy, Internal Medicine, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Corey S. Obermiller, Internal Medicine, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Abstract

Survivors of critical illness are at high risk for poor long-term outcomes, including readmissions, reduced quality of life, and mortality. A post-ICU telehealth care model may improve outcomes. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of a post-ICU telehealth care model. We performed a single-center randomized controlled trial of 400 ICU patients with sepsis and/or acute respiratory failure, who had two or fewer hospital admissions in the past year, and who were not admitted from or discharged to hospice, a skilled nursing facility, or a long-term acute care hospital. The intervention group had scheduled telehealth visits at 1 and 2 weeks after ICU discharge and as needed for 6 months with a clinician trained in post-ICU recovery. The primary outcome is the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Overall healthcare spending on emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations were a mean (SD, in U.S. dollars) $7,801.10 ($15,461.03) in the attention control group versus $8,086.50 ($17,464.87) in the intervention group, with a calculated incremental net benefit of $1,958.29 (-$5,779.56 to $9,696.14). ER visits to our healthcare system were the same between groups, but patient-reported ER visits to outside hospitals were different (0.97 per 100 patients per month in the attention control group vs. 2.43 in the intervention group; P = 0.03). Readmissions, mortality, quality-of-life scores, and overall patient satisfaction scores were similar between groups. This randomized controlled trial of a post-ICU telehealth intervention demonstrated wide variation but no clear incremental net benefit compared with standard care. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04576065).