Remote Patient Monitoring Devices: Technologies and Outcomes
This paper examines remote patient monitoring (RPM) as an emerging healthcare strategy in the United States, highlighting how digital technologies reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Five specific RPM devices are reviewed in depth: the Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) device, the Mitra® Microsampling Device, affordable surgical robots, remote heart monitoring devices, and AI-powered wearables. For each technology, the paper discusses functionality, clinical applications, advantages, and limitations. The paper also addresses broader challenges of RPM adoption, including uneven accessibility and unverified device accuracy. It concludes with a recommendation that organizational and clinician competencies be evaluated and enhanced to ensure quality care and successful technology integration.
- Introduction to Remote Patient Monitoring: Overview of RPM technology in U.S. healthcare
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring Device: CGM device features, function, and limitations
- Mitra® Microsampling Device and Surgical Robots: Microsampling and robotic surgical device review
- Remote Heart Monitoring and AI-Powered Wearables: Cardiac monitoring and AI wearable capabilities
- Challenges of Remote Patient Monitoring: Accessibility, engagement, and accuracy limitations
- Conclusion and Recommendations: Call for competency evaluation and further research
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper organizes five distinct technologies into clearly labeled sections, making complex clinical information easy to follow and compare.
- Each device section covers mechanism, clinical use, benefits, and limitations—providing a balanced, structured analysis rather than promotional description.
- The conclusion directly links findings to a policy-level recommendation, connecting technology review to workforce development and quality care standards.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates systematic device-by-device literature synthesis—a technique common in health technology reviews. Rather than making broad claims, the author grounds each technology in specific examples (e.g., Dexcom G6, Eko Home, Riverfield™) and supports claims with peer-reviewed citations, giving the review both specificity and academic credibility.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an abstract summarizing scope and findings, followed by an introduction that contextualizes RPM within U.S. healthcare. Five numbered device sections form the body, each self-contained but contributing to a cumulative picture of RPM capabilities. A brief transitional paragraph addresses systemic limitations before a conclusion that synthesizes findings and offers actionable recommendations. The reference list follows APA formatting conventions.
Introduction to Remote Patient Monitoring
To achieve improved patient outcomes and significantly reduced healthcare costs, most U.S. healthcare systems have adopted remote patient monitoring (RPM) technology. Through this approach, caregivers and physicians can strengthen their relationships with patients and provide real-time health services. RPM devices have become increasingly convenient and effective in administering healthcare in the United States. Through RPM, clinical staff can monitor patients in non-traditional healthcare settings. For instance, RPM has enabled digital technologies to gather health information from patients' homes and transmit that data to healthcare practitioners for analysis and assessment (Joury et al., 2021).
The most common patient monitoring devices currently include voice applications that can regularly remind diabetic clients to take their medication while also enabling healthcare providers to monitor and manage the disease and blood pressure. Unlike most telehealth delivery techniques, remote patient monitoring devices do not require video or audio, nor must patients be located remotely. These services require appropriate technology to gather and analyze physiological information. The following five technologies are currently used to remotely manage patients and improve outcomes.
Continuous Glucose Monitoring Device
Dexcom first developed this technology. The Dexcom G6 eliminated the need for finger pricking during glucose testing by introducing an under-skin sensor that allows patients to monitor blood sugar levels continuously, day or night. Subsequently, Apple partnered with the San Diego–based company, linking the CGM sensor with the Apple Watch to produce an advanced version with upgraded features. Because blood glucose is monitored continuously, patients can observe their blood sugar level at any given time and evaluate trends over a specific period. This capability also prompts patients to balance food intake, medication, and physical activity (Hilty et al., 2021).
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) operates through a small sensor inserted just beneath the skin of the arm or abdomen. The sensor measures interstitial glucose levels, and a wireless transmitter relays the data to a monitor. The monitor can be a separate device or integrated into an insulin pump that the patient carries. Some CGM systems transmit data directly to a tablet or smartphone. The device records blood glucose levels whether the patient is sleeping, exercising, showering, or working. Additional features include an alarm that sounds when blood sugar rises too high or drops too low, the ability to download glucose trend data, and tools to help the patient manage exercise, meals, and medication in relation to glucose levels (Joury et al., 2021).
Some CGM models can share information with a second party by relaying data to another person's smartphone. For example, if a patient's blood sugar drops sharply overnight, the CGM device can wake a parent or caretaker in the next room. The Dexcom G5 Mobile has been approved to support treatment decisions, enabling patients to adjust their diabetic care plans based on CGM results without requiring a confirmatory finger-stick blood glucose test before administering insulin (El-Rashidy et al., 2021).
The primary outcome measure for CGM is improved quality of life. CGM devices allow patients to manage their blood sugar more effectively, significantly reducing hypoglycemic emergencies and the frequency of finger sticks. The CGM trend graph helps patients observe when blood glucose is rising or falling, informing appropriate corrective measures. CGM also supports good long-term glucose management, helping diabetic patients live more healthily. However, most CGM models do not provide fully verified accuracy, and patients may need to perform at least two finger-stick glucose tests per day to validate readings. Patients cannot rely solely on most CGM models for treatment decisions — for example, a patient should confirm CGM readings with a finger-stick test before adjusting an insulin dose. Using a CGM system is also more expensive than using a standard glucose meter (Hilty et al., 2021).
Conclusion and Recommendations
Current research has established wearables and sensors as viable RPM tools and has begun to focus on standardized interventions, methods, and evaluation measures. However, even as these technologies are integrated into healthcare systems, additional research is needed to enhance clinicians' knowledge and skills, quality of care, and patient outcomes that align with established health standards and patient expectations (El-Rashidy et al., 2021). The skillsets required for wearable and sensor-based care overlap significantly with those needed for telehealth delivery. As a result, organizational and clinician competencies should be evaluated and enhanced to guarantee quality care, organizational change, and integration of institutional missions. Further research is also needed in administrative, educational, clinical, and technical domains to foster a positive e-culture of care (Vegesna et al., 2017).
References
El-Rashidy, N., El-Sappagh, S., Islam, S. M., El-Bakry, H. M., & Abdelrazek, S. (2021). Mobile health in remote patient monitoring for chronic diseases: Principles, trends, and challenges. Diagnostics, 11(4), 607.
Griggs, K. N., Ossipova, O., Kohlios, C. P., Baccarini, A. N., Howson, E. A., & Hayajneh, T. (2018). Healthcare blockchain system using smart contracts for secure automated remote patient monitoring. Journal of Medical Systems, 42(7), 1–7.
Hilty, D. M., Armstrong, C. M., Edwards-Stewart, A., Gentry, M. T., Luxton, D. D., & Krupinski, E. A. (2021). Sensor, wearable, and remote patient monitoring competencies for clinical care and training: Scoping review. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 1–26.
Joury, A., Bob-Manuel, T., Sanchez, A., Srinithya, F., Sleem, A., Nasir, A., ... & Krima, S. R. (2021). Leadless and wireless cardiac devices: The next frontier in remote patient monitoring. Current Problems in Cardiology, 100800.
Rahaman, A., Islam, M. M., Islam, M. R., Sadi, M. S., & Nooruddin, S. (2019). Developing IoT based smart health monitoring systems: A review. Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle, 33(6), 435–440.
Vegesna, A., Tran, M., Angelaccio, M., & Arcona, S. (2017). Remote patient monitoring via non-invasive digital technologies: A systematic review. Telemedicine and e-Health, 23(1), 3–17.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.