Evaluation of the Philips Lifeline CareSage Risk Assessment System

August 29, 2020 updated by: Joseph C. Kvedar, Massachusetts General Hospital

Evaluating the Impact of an Integrated Risk Assessment System (Philips Lifeline Personal Emergency Response Service) on Healthcare Utilization

This study is being done to evaluate the impact of a system called CareSage. The CareSage system is a technology that uses clinical data to monitor, identify and target care to patients at risk of being transported to the hospital. The investigators want to see whether the CareSage system is effective in helping to identify hospital admissions which can be prevented.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The growing elderly population and rising rates of costly chronic disease have led to the development of preventative homecare management opportunities to improve health outcomes and reduce the number of patients who enter costly inpatient care. Partners HealthCare at Home (PHH) is a preventative homecare management system which offers general care as well as specialized services to help patients and their loved ones manage chronic conditions at home. Such continuity of care is achieved through a multidisciplinary clinical team and the integration of telemonitoring into the patient's care plan.

The Philips Lifeline Personal Emergency Response Service (PERS), a wearable button device worn on the wrist or as a pendant, is a telemonitoring device available to patients receiving care through PHH. When the patient presses the button, the patient is immediately connected with a Lifeline response agent. Philips Lifeline (PLL) has developed CareSage, a predictive analytics engine that combines continuous monitoring with predictive analytics. The clinical interface (CareSage platform) helps care teams monitor the patient's calculated risk scores for emergency transport. The algorithm used by this integrated risk assessment system was originally developed after studying a large cohort of the PERS subscribers (N = ~600,000). In Phase 1 of this study the algorithm was validated among a cohort (N = 3,335) of PHH patients to predict emergency transports in this population (AUC = .76).

In Phase 2 of this study, the investigators will conduct a prospective, randomized trial of 370 patients to assess the effect of the risk assessment CareSage platform and PHH tailored interventions on the rate of readmissions, quality of life, and the overall cost of medical care. The investigators hypothesize that a multidisciplinary intervention approach could significantly reduce the healthcare resource utilization in patient at high risk for hospitalization. The intervention will flag those patients at the highest risk for hospital transport, alert the patient's care team that an intervention may be needed, thereby targeting care at high risk patients who are most likely to get readmitted. By predicting which patients are at high risk of hospital transport which may lead to hospitalization, targeting interventions at those patients and engaging patients with their care team, the investigators hope to reduce readmissions, hospital days, and rates of mortality in high risk patients.

The goal of this 2-arm randomized controlled study is to assess the impact of the CareSage risk assessment platform on 90- and 180-day Emergency Department (ED) visits in a cohort of PHH patients. All patients will receive the PERS device and be followed for a total of 9 months, including an initial 3-month observation period and followed by a 6-month intervention period. At the beginning of the observation period (baseline), enrolled patients will be randomized into 2 groups: the Intervention Group or the Control Group. During the observation period the CareSage algorithm will calibrate using patient data (both groups) collected during this interval from the PERS device. Then, during the intervention period, patients in the intervention group will be actively monitored by the CareSage algorithm and will receive tailored PHH interventions if flagged as being at high risk for emergency transport. Patients in the control group will receive care as usual during the intervention period. All data collected during the study will be used to further strengthen the CareSage algorithm developed in the Phase I of this study.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

370

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Massachusetts
      • Waltham, Massachusetts, United States, 02451
        • Partners Healthcare at Home

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Aged 18 years or older
  • Receiving care from Partners Healthcare at Home (PHH)
  • Total healthcare costs fall within the middle 51st-95th percentile of patients seen at Partners Healthcare from fiscal year 2016

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Currently on admission in a hospital facility with planned discharge to a long-term-care facility or Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs).
  • Severe dementia, Alzheimer's or other serious psychiatric illness (severe anxiety disorder or psychosis).
  • Enrolled in the Integrated Care Management Program (iCMP) program.
  • Continued telemonitoring (TM) support extending into the 6 months of study period post the observation period of 3 months.
  • PHH patients with pacemakers and other implanted devices

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: OTHER
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: SINGLE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Group A
This group will include a cohort of 185 participants who will be monitored by the CareSage risk assessment platform. Tailored interventions, using a Stepped-Care Approach, will be targeted to patients flagged as high risk for emergency transport during the 6-month intervention period.
Patients in the intervention group will receive active monitoring by the CareSage risk assessment platform and clinical interface, including nurse triage calls and tailored PHH interventions. Beginning at month 4, the CareSage algorithm will assess patients' risk for emergency transport every 30 days. Patients identified as high risk will receive nurse triage calls and, depending on their needs, tailored care according to a stepped-care approach. The principal goals will be to reinforce the patients' education, ensure compliance with medications and diet, and identify recurrent symptoms amenable to treatment on an outpatient basis to avoid readmissions
NO_INTERVENTION: Group B
This group will include a cohort of 185 participants where study staff will not see if patients are flagged by the CareSage risk assessment platform as being at high or low risk for emergency transport during the 6-month intervention period. Patients will continue to receive care as usual.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of participants who visit the emergency department 90 and 180 days after the three month observational period and assessed by reviewing the medical records
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
To assess the impact of the CareSage risk assessment platform and tailored PHH intervention on the 90- and 180- day ED visits.
9 months after study enrollment

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Emergency Transport use
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Patient usage of emergency transport
9 months after study enrollment
30-, 90- and 180- day readmissions
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Data pertaining to the 30-day readmissions will be collected in the intervention period (6 months).
9 months after study enrollment
Total number of avoidable hospital admissions using Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) criteria
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Total number of avoidable hospital admissions
9 months after study enrollment
Total medical expenses attributable to the avoidable admissions
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Total medical expenses attributable to the avoidable admissions
9 months after study enrollment
Mortality rates
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Patient deaths
9 months after study enrollment
Time to readmission
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Length of time before patient was readmitted.
9 months after study enrollment
Patient quality of life
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
This outcome will be assessed using a validated questionnaire- Short-form 12 version 2 (SF-12v2)
9 months after study enrollment
Patient satisfaction with the service
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Patient and provider satisfaction with the service will be evaluated using a Satisfaction survey designed specifically for this study
9 months after study enrollment
Patient leakage
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Number of patients who have been admitted to hospitals outside of the Partners network will be assessed by patient self-disclosure at close-out
9 months after study enrollment
PLL switch rate from No to Yes-Payment at the end of the study.
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
The PLL switch rate from No to Yes-Payment will be evaluated at the end of the study by using the billing accounts from Phillips
9 months after study enrollment
Total number of hospital admissions assessed by reviewing the medical record
Time Frame: 9 months after study enrollment
Total number of hospital admissions for participants
9 months after study enrollment

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

May 19, 2017

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

April 16, 2019

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

November 30, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 14, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 20, 2017

First Posted (ACTUAL)

April 24, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

September 1, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 29, 2020

Last Verified

August 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 2017P000195

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Multimorbidity

Clinical Trials on Lifeline CareSage Flagging

Subscribe