Digital Health Governance: Improving Remote Monitoring Access, Adherence, and Return on Investment

© 2026 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved.

Any views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and/or participants and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy, or position of EP Lab Digest or HMP Global, their employees, and affiliates. 

EP LAB DIGEST. 2026;26(6):14-15.

Laura Dickens, MSN, RN; Aimee Stefanski, MS, APRN - BC; Christa Murphy, MHA, BSN, RN; Eric Grubman, MD, FACC, FHRS 
Heart & Vascular Center: Electrophysiology, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has become the cornerstone of device management. Robust evidence and consensus statements affirm RM as a standard of care that improves morbidity and mortality for patients with pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, and implantable loop recorders (ILRs).^1,2 Despite its clinical value, RM program execution is still fragmented in many institutions. Challenges such as incomplete patient enrollment, inconsistent workflows, and high administrative burden persist, leading to reduced efficiency and increased risk for missing device-related notifications that require clinical follow-up.³

Yale New Haven Health System (YNHHS), a large academic system encompassing multiple delivery networks, recognized these problems within the Heart and Vascular Center’s (HVC) Electrophysiology (EP) RM program. To address them, nurse leaders spearheaded the creation of a digital health governance structure that standardized processes, reduced documentation errors, optimized revenue cycles, and improved patient safety. This article describes the development, implementation, and outcomes of that governance model, offering lessons that other EP services can adapt to strengthen their RM programs.

Background and Rationale
The EP RM program at YNHHS spans 5 hospitals and manages approximately 15,000 patients across multiple industry platforms including CareLink (Medtronic), LATITUDE (Boston Scientific), Merlin.net Patient Care Network (Abbott), Home Monitoring (Biotronik), and the data aggregator  Heart+ (91Life). 

Although RM was firmly established as a standard of care at YNHHS, workflow inconsistencies revealed several opportunities for improvement. Initial assessments identified the following systemic issues:

• High enrollment errors. Approximately 60% of patients were not correctly enrolled in RM at the time of implant. This posed patient safety risks, including missed device notifications and potential loss to follow-up EP care.⁴
• Interoperability barriers. Industry platforms rely on proprietary portals and data formats. The lack of interoperability among systems required manual uploads and custom information technology (IT) workarounds, introducing inefficiencies and risk for error.⁵
• Workflow inconsistencies: Labor-intensive RM practices created patient safety risks and reduced operational efficiency, resulting in delayed or omitted care.
• Revenue cycle gaps. Manual reconciliation of RM reports delayed billing, increased the likelihood of errors, and resulted in lost productivity and underestimation of workload.⁶

These issues represented both safety risks and operational inefficiencies. Patients expected timely review of actionable device notifications, yet fragmented processes increased the likelihood of delayed or missed care. Although patient satisfaction was not measured in this project, challenges such as consistent communication and access to reliable RM workflows influence patient experience and trust.⁸ Adoption of a systemwide digital health governance model was essential to address these issues and improve care delivery.

Governance Framework
YNHHS established the Center for Healthcare Innovation (CHI) to provide systemwide oversight of digital health initiatives. This structure was designed to ensure digital workflows were scalable and transferable to other digital platforms and clinical domains, including EP RM workflows. The YNHHS HVC EP RM team reports to a system subcommittee, the Digitally Enabled Clinical Program Committee, which aligns digital clinical programs with system quality, safety, and operational priorities. The EP RM work was guided by the CHI, incorporating principles of high reliability, standardization, and continuous improvement. This included alignment with the broader YNHHS Quality Strategy of system patient safety priorities and digital transformation goals.

Key elements of the governance model included:

• Interdisciplinary collaboration. Committee membership included EP nurses, advanced practice providers, electrophysiologists, administrators, IT professionals, revenue cycle specialists, and industry partners.
• Industry accountability. The committee engaged directly with Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and 91Life to escalate issues and monitor resolution.

Committee goals were as follows: 

1. Improve patient safety and reduce variability
2. Standardize workflows across delivery networks
3. Ensure programmatic financial sustainability⁷

Workflow Innovations
These workflow redesigns balanced clinical vigilance with operational efficiency and demonstrated measurable impact through the governance model:

• Standardized enrollment. Implementation of verification checklists at the time of implant reduced enrollment errors from 60% to <2%.⁴
• Billing automation. Integration of industry transmissions into Heart+ and the electronic health record (EHR) automated billing once a transmission is validated. This automation reduced manual steps, improved patient compliance, and decreased administrative burden, resulting in a 120% increase in captured productivity and significant reduction in missed charges.⁶
• Alert triage team. Ongoing development and standardization of systemwide alert tirage pathways for ILR devices. A dedicated nursing triage team was created for ILRs to conduct daily alert review, determine clinical significance leveraging triage pathways, and educate patients while assisting with connectivity issues to ensure uninterrupted RM.⁸

Outcomes of the governance model included:

• Access. Improved patient enrollment errors from 60% to <2%
• Productivity. Since 2021, captured productivity increased by approximately 120%
• Safety. Following standardization of CIED alert triage within the third-party aggregator, review-to-resolution time decreased from a median of 24 hours to 6 hours during clinic hours of operation. The standardized taxonomy strengthened cross-site consistency and enabled automated analytics that support quality, safety, and revenue-cycle alignment. 
• Return on investment (ROI). Revenue cycle and automation improvements generated an 80% increase in ROI since 2021, supporting long-term program sustainability.⁶

Lessons Learned
Many practical takeaways were discovered during the development of the standardized, systemwide EP RM program. First, effective digital health oversight was essential. Establishing a nurse-led team with an organizational reporting structure created a defined venue for decision-making, escalation, and evaluation of new technologies.

Second, the greatest barriers were organizational rather than technical. The most challenging was the wide variation in workflows across sites as each program had its own workflows and staffing models. Aligning these differences required detailed case reviews, collaborative discussion, and the creation of shared, systemwide standards. Limited access to consistent data dashboards also posed a barrier, making it difficult to quantify workload and evaluate performance until new reporting tools were developed with our third-party aggregation team. Fragmented cost centers, inconsistent staffing models, and varying levels of digital literacy contributed to workflow gaps and inefficiencies. Consolidating financial responsibility, building sustainable staffing models, and integrating structured continuing education were necessary steps to stabilize operations and support safe growth.

Third, strong collaboration with industry partners needed to be clearly defined. Expectations must continue to be set regarding consistent communication, proactive management of device advisories, and transparency around platform functionality.

These lessons highlighted that the success of EP RM relies not only on technology, but on innovative organizational structures, collaboration, workforce development, and data-driven improvement strategies that support clinicians and protect patients. Looking ahead, the EP RM team recognizes that quality improvement is continuous. Future work will focus on expanding automation to reduce manual workflows, strengthening integration between industry partners, refining clinical actionable work as device technologies evolve, and monitoring long-term outcomes such as alert fatigue, workload trends, and patient safety metrics. Sustaining a high-reliability EP RM program will require ongoing evaluation, oversight, and adaptability.

Implications for Practice
Other EP RM programs facing care fragmentation may benefit from a digital health governance model of care. The model has broader applications to telemonitoring, ambulatory cardiology, and other digital care platforms. By aligning frontline expertise with structured oversight, health systems can achieve sustainable improvements in safety, efficiency, and ROI.⁷

Conclusion
YNHHS’s nurse-led digital health governance framework demonstrates the transformative potential of structured oversight in RM. Standardization, automation, and interdisciplinary collaboration produced measurable gains in safety, access, productivity, and financial performance. For EP RM programs navigating digital health integration, the lesson is clear: clinical leaders are uniquely positioned to drive innovation through standardization. 

1. Hindricks G, Varma N, Kacet S, et al. Daily remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: insights from the pooled patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials (IN-TIME, ECOST, TRUST). Eur Heart J. 2017;38(22):1749-1755. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx015
    
2. Slotwiner DJ, Tarakji KG, Al-Khatib SM, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(7):e69-e100. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.05.008
    
3. Ricci RP, Morichelli L, D’Onofrio A, et al. Effectiveness of remote monitoring of CIEDs in detection and treatment of clinical and device-related cardiovascular events in daily practice: the HomeGuide Registry. Europace. 2013;15(7):970-977. doi:10.1093/europace/eus440
    
4. Varma N, Braunschweig F, Burri H, et al. Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices and disease management. Europace. 2023;25(9):euad233. doi:10.1093/europace/euad233
    
5. Walker DM, Tarver WL, Jonnalagadda P, et al. Perspectives on challenges and opportunities for interoperability: findings from key informant interviews with stakeholders in Ohio. JMIR Med Inform. 2023;11:e43848. doi:10.2196/43848
    
6. Slotwiner DJ, Abraham RL, Al-Khatib SM, et al. HRS White Paper on interoperability of data from cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Heart Rhythm. 2019;16(9):e107-e127. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.05.002
    
7. Porter-O’Grady T, Malloch K. Quantum Leadership: Creating Sustainable Value in Health Care, Sixth Edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2021.
    
8. Ferrick AM, Raj SR, Deneke T, et al. 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on practical management of the remote device clinic. J Arrhythm. 2023;39(3):250-302. doi:10.1002/joa3.12851