In our interviews with executives from 20 different top-tier provider organizations, we asked how wearable technology might support their patient care models and businesses. Below are highlights from these interviews.
Key Provider Motivations:
Gain Visibility into Patient Recovery
Provide Excellent Patient Experience
During our product-market fit interviews and research, we identified several key benefits for a wearable mobile solution among various stakeholder groups involved in TJR surgeries.
TOP BENEFITS FOR PHYSICIANS:
Outcomes Reporting/Dashboard (based on objective data)
Remote Care Monitoring
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
TOP BENEFITS FOR PHYSICAL THERAPISTS:
Consistent Patient Education
TOP BENEFITS FOR ORTHOPEDIC SERVICE LINE ADMINISTRATORS:
Outcomes Reporting/Dashboard (based on objective data captured from sensors)
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Syncing of patient outcomes results and patient clinical data with the EMR to provide a more complete picture
TOP BENEFITS FOR PATIENTS:
Instructional Videos, Visually Guided Home Exercise, Telehealth Connection to Provider
Convenience—Can be used anywhere, anytime
Flexibility in Exercise Programs (e.g., pause, restart, skip)
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS MUST SOLVE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS
During the interviews, we consistently heard the need for proof points to demonstrate new technologies and processes. We heard that sales teams approach healthcare organizations and orthopedic practices with new technologies every day. Yet, providers are reluctant to adopt new technology unless it can solve a critical problem, integrate with clinical workflows, save time and money and has a pre-existing business model (i.e., reimbursement). And rightly so, since new solutions involve changing how some clinicians are doing their jobs today. Providers do not favor treating patients differently or practicing differently due to different reimbursement models. The investment in changing protocols or caring for patients outside the hospital and practice site must save time and be worthwhile. Integrated solutions, via wearable sensors and smart mobile devices, that aid patient recovery while automating the reporting of results and events (complications, pain scores) can pay off when scaled across multiple orthopedists and broadly adopted by patients. This applies to both episodes of care and traditional fee-for-service reimbursement models.
Keswani, A., et al. Discharge Destination After Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Postdischarge Outcomes, Placement Risk Factors, and Recent Trends. Journal of Arthroplasty. June 2016. Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 1155–1162.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model. Web. Accessed 1 February 2017.
Alliance for Home Health Quality Innovation, “Distribution of Post-Acute Care under CJR Mode of Lower Extremity Joint Replacements for MS-DRG 470”. 2011-2014 Standard Analytical Files (SAF) Limited Data Set (LDS); 5% and 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, All Part A and Part B Care Settings.
Harris Meyer, Replacing joints faster, cheaper and better? Modern Healthcare, June 4, 2016
Yao, Dong-han, et al. Home Discharge After Primary Elective Total Joint Arthroplasty: Post discharge Complication Timing and Risk Factor Analysis. Journal of Arthroplasty. February 2017 Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 375–380.
Breg. Breg Flex: Mobile Patient Therapy Monitoring for Value Based Care. Results of observational studies of patients. Carlsbad: Breg, 2017. Print.
Wang, Li., et al. Does preoperative rehabilitation for patients planning to undergo joint replacement surgery improve outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 2;6(2): e00985.
D. Santa Mina, et al. analysis. Physiotherapy 100 (2014) 196–207.
Brown K., et al. Prehabilitation and quality of life three months after total knee arthroplasty: a pilot study. Perceptual & Motor Skills. 2012;115(3):765-774.
Snow R., et al. Associations between preoperative physical therapy and post-acute care utilization patterns and cost in total joint replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2014 Oct 1;96(19): e165. Web. Accessed 12 Feb. 2017.
To be continued: This insight is Part 3 in a series of four parts.
A full download of the article will be available at the end of the series.