throbber
1 Modern
`Healthcare
`
`
`
`Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM
`To: 118701
`Subject: HHN: Web helps nurses manage patients
`
`Chronic Illness Care
`Web helps nurses manage patients
`John Morrissey
`
`02/07/2000
`Modern Healthcare
`Supplement (Eye on Info)
`73
`
`Copyright (C) 2000 Crain Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
`
`Four nurses juggle the care of 700 chronically ill patients in and
`around Sacramento, Calif. And their caseload could swell very soon.
`
`Mercy Heart Institute. which employs the nurses as case managers,
`hopes to monitor at least 1,000 patients without hiring anyone else. But
`this development is just fine with the case managers. Same with most of
`the patients.
`With the aid of a two-way lntemet connection between nurses and
`patients, the heart institute‘s program on managing congestive heart
`failure allows nurses to monitor the current roster of patients more
`closely. it also allows patients to be added and trees nurses to focus
`on problem cases. Nurses flag those cases through daily patient
`feedback.
`
`From simple monitors installed in their homes, patients enter Vitals
`and answer questions posed by a case manager through an electronic
`connection. Measured against normal ranges and previous readings, the
`information confirms a stable situation or prompts immediate action.
`
`The same type of online daily monitoring by Santa Clara County
`(Calit.) Individual Practice Association is capturing the attention of
`congestive heart failure patients identified as "challenging" -- they're
`lax in following instructions and regimens for preventing a medical
`tailspin.
`
`The 55 patients chosen as prospects for the program last April had
`multiple hospitalizations and emergency room episodes to show for their
`lax compliance. About 80% now use the lntemet-based program, which has
`greatly facilitated managing their conditions, says Lawrence Bonham,
`MD., the practice association's chief executive officer. "It gets us in
`better touch with these patients,“ he says. “Prior to that, we didn't
`know who was stable and who wasn't.“
`
`
`
`Bosch Ex. 2013
`Cardiocom v. Bosch IPR2013-00468
`
`1
`
`

`
`Both healthcare organizations are testing the capabilities of‘l:leal1lI
`51-lerg jxlgtwgkis system, which is designed to actively and
`cost-effectively manage chronically ill patients.
`
`The Health Hero system includes:
`
`* A secure Internet-based data center.
`
`* A software package for case managers to compose care plans for
`individual patients.
`
`* A simple consumer-oriented "app|iance“ kept in patient homes. The
`device receives messages from case managers and sends them information
`on patients, such as weight gain and adherence to medication regimens.
`
`The Mountain View, Calif.-based company is racing toward the next
`managed-care challenge as the cost of treating chronic illness increases
`as a percentage of total U.S. spending on healthcare.
`
`In 1990 direct medical costs for people with chronic conditions
`totaled $425 billion, 60% of the nation's medical~care costs. By 1995,
`direct medical costs had risen to $470 billion, 70% of total U.S.
`medical-care expenses, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
`
`The American Heart Association estimated that spending on congestive
`heart failure in 1999 was $20 billion, with $15 billion resulting from
`hospitalization or nursing home care.
`
`Before the Intemet-based program was launched, Mercy Heart
`Institute, a division of Mercy Healthcare Sacramento, already had a
`thriving 2-year-old program of aggressive "telephonic surveillance,"
`which had reduced rehospitalizaticn of congestive heart failure
`inpatients by 79%, says Richard Miller, M.D., director of the institute
`and Mercy's care-management programs.
`
`Miller says nurses were allowed to make some independent decisions on
`adjusting medications for congestive heart failure by following
`algorithms -- precise directions based on information provided by
`patients when nurses call them.
`
`Though successful so far, the telephone-based case-management program
`is “quite labor-intensive" and limits a nurse's caseload to 150 to 200
`patients, he says. Also, contact dwindles to a few times per month for
`patients who haven't had a hospital episode for a while. Case managers
`have to concentrate on recently discharged patients, following them
`three to four times per week.
`
`A six-month pilot project at Mercy Heart Institute has shown, however,
`that most patients respond to instructions and requests for daily
`information in a two-way exchange with nurses communicating over the
`World Wide Web.
`
`A small device called a Health Buddy was installed in the homes of 115
`patients participating in the pilot. Nearly 90% of the patients complied
`with the daily routine, delivering daily electronic reports for case
`managers.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`With the reports, nurses can scan all their cases and flag worrisome
`symptoms, medication questions and failure to follow doctors’ orders. 80
`instead of starting the day by trying to catch a water-weight gain -- a
`common sign that fluid is building up and diuretics aren't working -
`nurses already knew the conditions of their patients and could
`concentrate on intervention rather than investigation.
`The shift to personal contact for only high-risk cases and exceptions
`to normal readings meant that most patients talked less frequently with
`a caregiver. But that didn't generally make people feel neglected.
`
`“Patients still feel equally if not more connected with the nurse,
`because they feel they're communicating every day instead of twice a
`month,“ Miller says.
`
`Adds Bonham of Santa Clara County IPA: “Patients are happy with the
`process. Our patient-satisfaction surveys have come back strong; over
`90% say they like it and it's easy to use."
`
`The experience with daily reporting has shown that phone calls alone
`leave many problem situations undiscovered, says Miller.
`
`"By reporting every day, we have long-term trends that we didn't have
`before,“ Bonham says.
`
`In the first two weeks of daily feedback, Mercy already had detected
`unstable patients and “given them much more rapid treatment than they
`would have othenivise received,“ Miller says. The algorithms that nurses
`use were changed after the institute realized congestive heart failure
`patients experienced “daily fluctuation of three or four or five pounds.
`That was a real eye-opener."
`
`The California test sites were at the forefront of aggressive care
`methods, but they didn't have the steady reporting to pick up subtle
`trends. Patients with congestive heart failure wait an average of five
`days after a change in symptoms before seeking care, Miller says. The
`daily monitoring “theoretically should shorten that five-day delay
`substantially."
`
`Both organizations are researching the costs and outcomes of the
`Internet reporting program, and Mercy is converting all 700 patients to
`the system.
`
`Calculating that it can handle 300 to 400 cases per nurse, the
`institute believes it can conservatively enroll 1,000 patients to be
`monitored by the four case managers, Miller says. The heart institute
`has implemented the program at three of the seven hospitals that make up
`Mercy Healthcare Sacramento and is starting the program at the remaining
`four, he says.
`
`Santa Clara County IPA is aggressively identifying other candidates
`who have trouble following their care plans, Bonham says.
`
`Photo Caption: Bonham
`Art Caption: Aging and chronic illness
`
`Folder Name: HHN
`Fielevance Score on Scale of 100: 82
`
`
`
`3

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket