Search the hub

This joint webinar, hosted by the Digital Care Hub and Homecare Association, will be an insightful session on the safe use of AI in homecare. This discussion is tailored for adult social care providers in England, and will include: Provider Insights: Hear from industry experts and social care providers on the latest trends and challenges. Innovative AI Applications: Discover exciting examples of AI transforming homecare. Ethical and Safety Considerations: Learn about the key ethical and safety aspects to consider. Practical Tips: Get top tips for implementing AI effectively in your practice. This session is designed for adult social care providers in England and are aimed at people who make decisions about the use of technology in care services. Register

The King's Fund is pleased to invite you to their moving care closer to home event in October. For years there has been an ambition to move care closer to home – now it’s time to make it a reality. This timely event, now in its second year, moves beyond local implementation to ask a critical question: what will it take to scale community-based care across the entire health and care system? It will bring together policy leaders, operational managers, innovators and practitioners to tackle the entrenched challenges, such as workforce, funding and infrastructure, and to spotlight the real-world innovations already changing care delivery. This in-person event is a perfect opportunity for you to connect with key stakeholders from across the system and clarify the role you can play in making care closer to home a reality. Register

This article explores how remote patient monitoring (RPM) is transforming patient safety by enabling continuous, real-time tracking of health data outside clinical settings. It provides a comprehensive overview of RPM technologies, their clinical benefits, implementation challenges and best practices. It highlights the growing importance of RPM in proactive care models and its role in reducing hospital readmissions, improving medication adherence and supporting vulnerable patient populations. How is remote patient monitoring changing patient safety? A Mass General Brigham study of 10,803 participants found that RPM reduced mean blood pressure from 150/83 to 145/83, which significantly lowers cardiovascular disease risk.[1] RPM technologies provide clinicians with real-time data streams; this allows for quick interventions when patient conditions change. The continuous monitoring bridges dangerous gaps between appointments where medical complications developed undetected. Beyond crisis prevention, RPM enhances medication safety through adherence tracking and creates comprehensive longitudinal health records revealing subtle trends conventional episodic care might miss. The benefits reach vulnerable groups—elderly, rural and mobility-limited patients—who now get regular supervision free of transportation constraints, creating safety nets once inaccessible under conventional care models. Real-time monitoring: a lifeline for early intervention and patient safety RPM provides regular data collection that serves as a buffer against avoidable harm by detecting minute physiological changes that indicate clinical deterioration. RPM significantly bolsters patient safety by enabling early detection of health deteriorations, thereby facilitating timely interventions. A study published in NPJ Digital Medicine analysed 29 studies across 16 countries and found that RPM interventions led to a reduction in hospital readmissions and emergency department visits.[2] Specifically, the study highlighted that RPM demonstrated positive outcomes in patient safety and adherence, and improved patients' mobility and functional statuses. This early warning feature considerably improves patient safety by enabling timely clinical interventions before symptoms worsen. A known patient with serious congestive heart failure can also be given diuretic adjustments remotely, avoiding hospitalisation. RPM also decreases the risks associated with medications by enabling physicians to identify missed doses and adverse reactions. Long-term data further strengthens safety by showing patterns—like low oxygen levels at night in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients—that single tests might miss. Personalised interventions are supported by this fine-grained understanding, especially for high-risk populations such as patients living in rural areas that have improved access to attentive monitoring. By combining speed and accuracy, RPM transforms patient safety to an actionable, data-driven and efficient procedure rather than a fixed objective. Key technologies driving remote patient monitoring: enabling safer, data-driven care Remote patient monitoring depends on a complex ecosystem of linked technology that extends clinical supervision outside of facility boundaries. Wearable devices form the basic foundation of this system—with regulatory-approved sensors capturing vital metrics continuously. RPM is transforming healthcare by shifting from reactive to proactive safety strategies. These digital systems continuously track vital signs, medication compliance and physiological parameters outside traditional clinical settings. This enables early detection of deterioration before serious complications arise. Advanced cardiac monitors identify arrhythmias with 98% accuracy and smart glucose sensors provide real-time glycaemic information via subcutaneous readings. Connected devices for tracking urinary patterns help physicians diagnose various types of incontinence without requiring in-person assessments, improving dignity and convenience for patients with mobility challenges. Smart inhalers with embedded sensors record medication usage patterns and technique, enabling precise interventions for respiratory conditions. Mobile applications are a link between patients and clinical teams—with simple dashboards that show health trends and medication adherence. These platforms usually combine clinical protocols, secure messaging systems and alerts based on preset thresholds. Backend analytics platforms transform raw physiological data into clinically relevant insights through sophisticated algorithms. These systems analyse longitudinal data against established baselines to detect minor abnormalities that precede clinical deterioration. According to studies, these predictive capacities can detect sepsis 6–12 hours earlier than traditional approaches, considerably increasing survival rates.[3] Secure, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant electronic health record (EHR) integration—using end-to-end encryption and strict authentication—creates comprehensive patient profiles, enabling better-informed treatment decisions. Implementing remote patient monitoring: main challenges RPM has numerous benefits in healthcare, but putting it into practice involves challenges that need thoughtful solutions. Digital literacy gaps create accessibility barriers, particularly among elderly populations where only 64% report comfort with technology-based healthcare tools according to the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society survey of 3,450 seniors.[4] Privacy concerns are significant as continuous monitoring generates sensitive health data that requires strong security. To maintain patient trust while meeting regulatory standards, healthcare centres must use end-to-end encryption, unambiguous consent mechanisms and transparent data governance frameworks. Another problem is clinical workflow integration; RPM systems that function without the use of EHR platforms result in documentation silos. Customised integration pathways that embed remote monitoring data within regular clinical interfaces are required for successful RPM implementation. When clinicians get an overwhelming number of notifications, the intended safety benefits are undermined. Effective systems use tiered alert processes with tailored thresholds that are based on patient baselines rather than population norms. These graduated notification systems ensure that important notifications receive necessary attention while preventing frequent low-risk alerts. As healthcare organisations face these issues, good implementation frameworks that include technical assistance, privacy safeguards and workflow optimisation are relevant to fulfilling RPM's full potential. Best practices for patient-centered remote monitoring Effective RPM is beyond technological equipment; it requires an effective structure that can only come from consistent planning and review. Healthcare organisations should establish dedicated implementation teams comprising clinicians, IT staff and patient advocates to gather diverse viewpoints and boost adoption of RPM. This cross-functional strategy improves RPM acceptance and sustainability while lowering possible resistance. Healthcare administrators should train providers thoroughly on both technical use of medical devices and data interpretation. A 2023 NEJM Catalyst study of 76 healthcare centres showed that centres with robust training of healthcare professionals had 43% higher RPM use after a year compared to those with minimal training.[5] Healthcare professionals should also be trained to focus equally on patient support through easy enrolment, clear instructions in multiple languages and in-person device training. Dedicated tech support channels should be created for RPM users in order to prevent frustration whenever there is a network glitch. Clear clinical protocols defining intervention thresholds, escalation pathways and response timeframes should be made to transform data into actionable intelligence. Rigorous quality assurance measures—including regular connectivity testing, data validation audits and patient usability assessments—safeguard programme integrity. Periodic review cycles examining alert frequency, response times and intervention outcomes help refine system parameters for maximum clinical utility. The most effective RPM programmes integrate patient feedback mechanisms allowing continuous refinement of interfaces, alert frequencies, and educational materials based on real-world experience. Conclusion RPM is improving healthcare from reactive to preventive care. As technology advances, these systems will become standard practice. Future developments will include smaller sensors, longer battery life and better connectivity—making monitoring easier for patients while improving data quality. Better predictive analytics will help physicians identify health problems earlier with greater accuracy. Beyond helping patients, RPM is changing organisational safety culture by expanding care beyond hospitals. This shift represents a major advancement—creating continuous monitoring systems that protect patients throughout their healthcare journey and redefining patient safety for modern medicine. References 1. Mass General Brigham. Mass General Brigham Remote Healthcare Delivery Program Improves Blood Pressure and Cholesterol Level, 9 November 2022. 2. Ying Tan S, et al. A systematic review of the impacts of remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions on safety, adherence, quality-of-life and cost-related outcomes. NPJ Digital Medicine 2024; 7: 192. 3. King J, et al. Early Recognition and Initial Management of Sepsis in Adult Patients. Ann Arbor (MI): Michigan Medicine University of Michigan, 2023. 4. American Geriatrics Society 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2024; 72: III-VI. 5. Barrett JB, et al. Reduced Hospital Readmissions Through Personalized Care: Implementation of a Patient, Risk-Focused Hospital-Wide Discharge Care Center. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2025;6(6). DOI: 10.1056/CAT.24.0420. Further reading on the hub Putting patients at the heart of digital health Digital diagnosis—what the doctor ordered? Electronic patient record systems: Putting patient safety at the heart of implementation How do we harness technology responsibly to safeguard and improve patient care?

As part of Care Forward, a national movement focused on making care better for over a million people across the country, Healthcare Excellence Canada with supporting organisations are launching new offerings that provide participants with funding, resources and coaching to drive impact on four key priorities: expanding care access, helping more people age where they call home, advancing person-centred long-term care and strengthening the health workforce. Join this webinar series to explore these offerings and how you can get involved: Right Care Challenge supports health and social care organizations to launch or enhance initiatives that ensure patients receive the right care, at the right time, in the right place—all while helping reduce avoidable emergency department visits.   Enhancing Integrated Care supports primary and community care organisations to strengthen integrated team-based care models, including virtual care, making access easier and reducing pressure on emergency departments. Paramedics and Social Prescribing helps paramedic teams use social prescribing to connect clients with local community services, improving overall health and wellbeing. Primary Care Access Improvement helps team-based primary care organisations  create efficiencies and optimise team functioning, so patients receive timely care, regardless of urgency or demand.   Nursing Home Without Walls supports jurisdictions across the country to bring nursing home support and services to older adults in their own homes, helping them age safely and comfortably where they already live. Sparking Change in Appropriate Use of Antipsychotics Awards Program provides long-term care homes across Canada with support to use person-centered approaches to reduce potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use. Register

In early 2022, following his wishes, my husband was discharged from hospital for end of life care at home to be provided by his family (his wife, three adult children and son-in-law) and nurses from our local hospice. We were completely unprepared for the challenges and disruption that lay ahead for us all.  Challenges during discharge The first challenge we encountered was receiving conflicting, confusing information from different staff members regarding my husband’s prognosis and future treatment and care. His consultant and their team were optimistic, speaking of further tests and a possible response to treatment in 3 weeks’ time. It was in that meeting, and on that basis, that we supported discharge and discussed arrangements. But the senior specialist nurse caring for him was alarmed by what we had been told. Immediately after the meeting they took us aside to tell us that, in their view, my husband had only days left to live. Although unsettled by this conflicting information, we preferred to believe in the more optimistic prognosis. On that understanding, we began to make preparations. At this point we knew: My husband would be taken home by ambulance the next day. A hospital bed and other equipment would be delivered to our home the next morning. We would receive a supply of medication on leaving the hospital. Hospice nurses would visit us twice a day to assist, starting the next day. Apart from needing a family member to wait at home in the morning to receive the bed, we thought we would be able to spend his last day in hospital quietly by his bedside. What actually happened couldn’t have been more disorderly or more disturbing. In practice, in addition to receiving the conflicting prognoses, this is what we experienced before discharge: My husband’s discharge was delayed by more than 48 hours, as hospital staff had great difficulty coordinating everything required for his move home. There were significant requirements we had not been told about, such as the need for an oxygen supply at home, which had to be located at a distance from a gas supply. The coordination difficulties meant that one of us waited alone at home for two full days, to receive the hospital bed and other equipment. This family member was therefore unable to be with my husband for an extended period at a critical time. On the second day of the delay, in direct contradiction of their advice the previous day, the ward sister advised us to take an immediate patient transport appointment even though it would mean going home before the hospital bed had arrived, and without any confirmation of when, or if, one would arrive. As the day went on, this nurse’s exhortations to leave without a bed in place at home were repeated and increasingly aggressive, and included the threat that there would, as a result, be no guarantee that hospice nurses could support us when we did eventually get home. We experienced this as bullying, coercive behaviour that greatly confused and disturbed us at a time when we most needed clarity, consistency and sensitivity. Delivery of the hospital bed was not straightforward. Access had not been checked beforehand, and when the bed arrived it was found that the layout of the house made it impossible to move it into a bedroom. With some difficulty, it was placed in the living room. The other equipment included an oxygen supply. This was not straightforward either. The bed had been placed near a gas fire. It had to be moved to a safe distance from the gas supply, which required taking furniture out of the room, difficult for the one family member at home handling this situation. Ward staff had contacted our local hospice on our behalf. We asked to have direct contact with the hospice ourselves so we could confirm arrangements. The ward sister (the one whose behaviour we had experienced as coercive) advised us not to contact them. We complied with this and so we left the hospital with no information about what the hospice nurses knew of my husband’s condition and no direct confirmation of their visits. This felt very insecure and contributed to our stress. We felt thrust into the unknown when we were at our most vulnerable by a system that didn’t want us. While we worked our way through all the problems, my husband’s condition was deteriorating, and he was suffering. He had a high temperature, great pain and nausea. But once the discharge decision was taken, nursing staff stopped taking his observations, stopped providing him with any medication to relieve symptoms and stopped washing him and providing meals. We had to insist that he be provided with some ongoing care and medication, and although he did receive the latter we had to overcome considerable resistance. These problems compounded one another and created chaotic, confusing circumstances. All family members at the hospital were spending their time running around, trying to get assistance and accurate information about what was happening and when from the various departments involved in the discharge of a patient in palliative care, all the while trying to be present for my husband and trying to ensure his comfort. We’d been very wrong indeed to have thought that we could spend the period before discharge gathered round his bedside, gently reminiscing. Challenges at home Once home, we faced further difficulties: There was a great deal to learn: how to operate the hospital bed; how to store and use the oxygen supply safely; how and when to administer the medication supply; how to turn my husband, and deal with incontinence; and how and when to try to feed him or give fluids. We all (including the hospice nurses) struggled to understand the medication which had been provided. We’d received 15 different drugs. They were to be administered according to widely varying schedules and had different means of administration (subcutaneous, injection, oral rinse, sublingual, oral). The explanations provided were delivered rapidly while we were standing in a congested corridor inches from my husband who was being removed by the ambulance staff, when he needed me and was calling to me. We had no opportunity to confirm our understanding of the different medications or to check the contents of the bag before we left the hospital. At home, we found several errors to the medication supply. There was a supply of chemotherapy medication that wasn’t prescribed. There was no supply of other medication that was prescribed. Most critically, we hadn’t received any pain relief medication in a form that we could administer, as my husband’s condition had deteriorated significantly during the delay to his discharge and he became unable to swallow. As a result, just a few hours before he died, at the advice of the hospice nurses who were waiting to receive a syringe driver for intravenous morphine administration, I was compelled to drive from pharmacy to pharmacy searching for pain relief medication that we could administer. I deeply regret that time away from my husband’s bedside. The hospice nurses arrived at our home a few hours after we did. We spent a significant period of time briefing them on their first visit. They needed details of my husband’s medical history, condition, and medication. This also took time away from his bedside. We found there were errors to the information recorded in the discharge summary we’d received on his departure from hospital. One was to his condition, which was assessed and recorded as ‘moderately frail’ (it had been erroneously auto-populated with admission data and should have been ‘terminally ill’). This information bewildered and misled us (causing some family members to delay visiting him, believing he was fitter than he was, for example) and created difficulties for the hospice nurses. They had prepared to assist someone ‘moderately frail’ and it took them time to adjust and get the necessary equipment and pain relief. Consequently my husband didn’t receive intravenous morphine until one hour before he died. As a result of these and many other issues, 34 hours after arriving home, my husband died having endured terrible pain and distress in chaotic and undignified conditions, which was devastating for his family to witness. Learning from experience If we had been aware of what we were undertaking, seeing how quickly my husband was deteriorating during the delay and understanding how little time we had left, we would have encouraged him to remain in hospital and explained to him why going home wasn’t a good idea. We wouldn’t have supported the decision to discharge him home. The delayed discharge and the short time that remained to us meant that all the problems we experienced were concentrated, and much harder to deal with as a result. This detracted from the very precious few hours that we had left together. Even the period immediately after his death was affected. We’d had no time to find out what happens once someone has died, and were devastated to learn, at 1 am, that we needed to identify undertakers as a matter of some urgency. Given the delay to my husband’s discharge and his deterioration, we should have asked for his suitability for discharge to be reassessed. As part of that reassessment, we should also have insisted on a review of his medication, particularly his pain relief medication. He left with a supply of medication that was based on an assessment of his condition made three days before his discharge. But even when everything goes smoothly and there are none of the problems described above, taking someone home for end of life care is still a major undertaking. The following could be useful for anyone preparing to do that. Key things needed to help families prepare to take someone home for end of life care 1. A handbook, providing: A checklist of what should happen and in what order, once the decision to discharge a patient has been made. Contact information for all hospital departments involved in discharging a patient for end of life care at home, including an indication of who’s responsible for what. The advice to find, if possible, a more distant relative, a friend or a neighbour willing to be at your home to receive the hospital bed and other items on your behalf. Instructions for use of all of the equipment provided, e.g. the hospital bed and the safe storage and use of the oxygen supply. Instructions for how to care for a bed bound patient in palliative care, e.g. how to turn them, wash them, deal with incontinence, how to feed them and provide liquids, and the best position for them to be in to facilitate breathing and their general comfort. Contact information and details of available support in the community, including, for example, pharmacy opening hours. A checklist of what items are needed to make the patient as comfortable as possible once home. Instructions for what needs to be done in the hours following death. 2. Contact with the hospice before discharge A meeting or phone call in which the patient’s medical history, condition and medication is shared. Information about what to expect e.g. visit frequency, timing and length; what the nurses will do/not do; how to manage in between visits and what support is available then, especially at night or otherwise out of hours. The hospice contact details, including emergency numbers. 3. A private meeting, in the hours prior to discharge, between the primary caregiver and a nurse familiar with the patient’s care and condition, enabling: A discussion of the patient’s ongoing care. An explanation of the discharge summary (and checking accuracy). A review of, and instructions for, the medication supply, including which medication should be prioritised in the event that not all can be administered. Confirmation that pain relief medication is provided in a form that can be administered as a patient in palliative care is likely to become unable to swallow. All of the above needs time. With time, the transition home is more likely to be successful. But if time is short, and particularly if problems arise, there can be concentrated chaos and confusion, likely to detract from the patient’s last hours and interfere with their care, as we found. For these reasons, in our experience, it isn’t viable or advisable to take a patient home from hospital for end of life care when they are deteriorating and it seems likely that only hours or days remain. If my husband had remained in hospital he would have received undisrupted care and medication (albeit in our case only with our insistence). All members of his family would have been able to be at his bedside throughout. He would have died in less pain, in more comfort and security, and with his dignity intact. And his family would have been much less traumatised by the experience. We live with enduring shame and sorrow for his suffering. What makes it worse is that much of it could have been avoided. Motivated by a desire to reduce the possibility of others suffering as we had done, in 2022 we submitted 20 complaints to the hospital concerned. Following a largely unsatisfactory response, we made a submission to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Our efforts over 16 months to bring about improvement are documented here. Related reading on the hub: HSIB: Variations in the delivery of palliative care services to adults Patients who experience harm provide stories, but who will really engage with their insights and opinions? Top picks: Eight resources about hospice and palliative care

Hospital at home and virtual wards use technology to monitor someone’s condition and provide remote as well as face-to-face care. These services aim to help avoid hospital admissions and facilitate early discharge. In this webinar, researchers and a clinician will present evidence from 3 reviews on hospital at home and virtual wards. Presentations will be followed by a Q&A session. The webinar will help participants understand: what are the key elements of hospital at home and virtual wards what is their impact on outcomes? what is their impact on service costs? what factors contribute to their success? Register

Sign up for this free, half-day policy event in Westminster to explore what it would take to successfully move care ‘from hospital to home’ and what we can learn from the experience of other health systems. Chaired by Isabel Hardman of The Spectator, the sessions will look at this through the lens of primary care, social care, and how health systems can rely less on hospitals. Register