Advertisement

Virtual Care 2.0—a Vision for the Future of Data-Driven Technology-Enabled Healthcare

  • Sanjeev P. BhavnaniEmail author
  • Amy M. SitapatiEmail author
State-of-the-Art Informatics (J Singh, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on State-of-the-Art Informatics

Abstract

A busy community cardiologist finished reading eight echocardiograms over lunch and started clinic at 1 pm. As three patients waited, “Jane,” a 45-year-old graphic designer was seen for “skipped heart beat.” She works about 50 h a week, exercises at the local gym, and enjoys eating a healthy diet. About 4 months ago Jane began experiencing her heart “skipping beats.” She initially attributed the symptoms to long hours in the office and caffeine. But, over the holiday, her brother purchased a smart watch and she began digitally recording her cardiac rhythm. About a month ago, the device detected possible atrial fibrillation, so she called and scheduled this visit for a cardiology consultation. Upon that visitation, she and her physician reviewed the device readings. While it appeared to be an irregular rhythm, before either considered a treatment plan, they began to ask questions ranging from the following: “Is this an accurate diagnosis?” “What other data are available to better understand the risk of a cardiac arrhythmia?” “How is this data analyzed so that the best treatment plan can be made?” “And, what type of clinical decision support system is required to ‘virtually’ monitor people like me using digital health devices to improve the efficiency and quality of care delivered in population health?”

Keywords

Virtual care Digital health Artificial intelligence Clinical decision support Patient engagement Population health 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Alivecor (San Francisco, CA), Dexcom (San Diego, CA), Omron (Osaka, Japan), and Abbott Laboratories (Chicago, IL) developers of the various devices depicted in Fig. 1 as examples of remote patient monitoring technologies in Fig. 1.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Sanjeev P. Bhavnani is a scientific or medical advisory board member to Analytics 4 Life, Blumio, Misceo Grand Technologies, iVEDIX, and WellSeek and is chair of a data safety monitoring board at Proteus Digital. He serves on the innovation steering committees (nonremunerated) at the American College of Cardiology and at American Society of Echocardiography.

Amy M. Sitapati declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Tuckson RV, Edmunds M, Hodgkins ML. Telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1585–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhavnani SP, Narula J, Sengupta PP. Mobile technology and the digitization of healthcare. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1428–38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25:44–56 Comprehensive review of the current state of artificial intelligence, its applications to various facets of healthcare, identification of the areas of healthcare deliver including imaging where machine learning may be most useful, and an outline of the limitations of creating artificial intelligence-based process of care.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    •• Bhavnani SP, Parakh K, Atreja A, Druz R, Graham GN, Hayek SS, et al. 2017 Roadmap for innovation-ACC Health Policy statement on healthcare transformation in the era of digital health, big data, and precision health: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Health Policy Statements and Systems of Care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2696–718 Strategy document for how new healthcare innovations are applied within research and patient care. It outlines key criteria for how the transformation of healthcare can be achieved with new technologies including human centric design principles and the application of the principles of evaluation, integration, engagement, and care efficiency to increase patient engagement and clinical workflow efficiency.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rumsfeld JS, Joynt KE, Maddox TM. Big data analytics to improve cardiovascular care: promise and challenges. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13:350–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKethan A, Berkowitz SA, Cohen M. Focusing on population health at scale—joining policy and technology to improve health. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:113–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shameer K, Badgeley MA, Miotto R, Glicksberg BS, Morgan JW, Dudley JT. Translational bioinformatics in the era of real-time biomedical, health care and wellness data streams. Brief Bioinform. 2017;18:105–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li L, Cheng WY, Glicksberg BS, Gottesman O, Tamler R, Chen R, et al. Identification of type 2 diabetes subgroups through topological analysis of patient similarity. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:311ra174.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salem Omar AM, Shameer K, Narula S, Abdel Rahman MA, Rifaie O, Narula J, et al. Artificial intelligence-based assessment of left ventricular filling pressures from 2-dimensional cardiac ultrasound images. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:509–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shameer K, Johnson KW, Yahi A, Miotto R, Li LI, Ricks D, et al. Predictive modeling of hospital readmission rates using electronic medical record-wide machine learning: a case study using Mount Sinai heart failure cohort. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2017;22:276–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilling LC, Kuo CL, Sicinski K, Tamosauskaite J, Kuchel GA, Harries LW, et al. Human longevity: 25 genetic loci associated in 389,166 UK biobank participants. Aging (Albany NY). 2017;9:2504–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wicks P. Patient, study thyself. BMC Med. 2018;16:217.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruynseels K, Santoni de Sio F, van den Hoven J. Digital twins in health care: ethical implications of an emerging engineering paradigm. Front Genet. 2018;9:31.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00031.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Zambotti M, Goldstone A, Claudatos S, Colrain IM, Baker FC. A validation study of Fitbit Charge 2™ compared with polysomnography in adults. Chronobiol Int. 2018;35:465–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xue F, Wang FY, Mao CJ, Guo SP, Chen J, Li J, et al. Analysis of nocturnal hypokinesia and sleep quality in Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;54:96–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hannun AY, Rajpurkar P, Haghpanahi M, Tison GH, Bourn C, Turakhia MP, et al. Cardiologist-level arrhythmia detection and classification in ambulatory electrocardiograms using a deep neural network. Nat Med. 2019;25:65–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galloway CD, Valys AV, Petterson FL, Gundrotra VP, Treiman DL, Albert DE, et al. Non-invasive detection of hyperkalemia with a smartphone electrocardiogram and artificial intelligence. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dameff C, Clay B, Longhurst CA. Personal health records: more promising in the smartphone era? JAMA. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.20434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Sitapati A, Kim H, Berkovich B, Marmor R, Singh S, El-Kareh R, Clay B, Ohno-Machado L. Integrated precision medicine: the role of electronic health records in delivering personalized treatment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2017;9. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1002/wsbm.1378. Report outlining the different types of clinical decision support and the present and future state of CDS ranging from integrated genetic profile-based support to digitized clinical workflows and the design elements necessary to increase the capacity of healthcare systems.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lesur O, Delile E, Asfar P, Radermacher P. Hemodynamic support in the early phase of septic shock: a review of challenges and unanswered questions. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:102.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagori A, Dhingra LS, Bhatnagar A, Lodha R, Sethi T. Predicting hemodynamic shock from thermal images using machine learning. Sci Rep. 2019;9:91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Komorowski M, Celi LA, Badawi O, Gordon AC, Faisal AA. The Artificial Intelligence Clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med. 2018;24:1716–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Badgeley MA, Shameer K, Glicksberg BS, Tomlinson MS, Levin MA, McCormick PJ, et al. EHDViz: clinical dashboard development using open-source technologies. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e01057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cardiology, Principal Investigator Healthcare Innovation & Practice Transformation LaboratoryScripps Clinic & Research FoundationSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Biomedical Informatics, Chief Medical Information Officer of Population HealthUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations