In the race to digitize care, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that care is the operative word.
Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) was never meant to be about devices alone. The promise was bigger: catching health problems earlier, keeping patients out of the hospital, and strengthening relationships between patients and their care teams.
Yet ask patients how that’s going, and the answers can be sobering.
According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 60% of Americans say they would feel uncomfortable if their provider relied on AI to diagnose or recommend treatments. The issue isn’t just about technology, it’s about trust. Many patients doubt that algorithms can understand the complexity of their lives or communicate with the empathy they expect from a clinician.
That’s the hidden truth behind the proliferation of RPM: when the human element is missing, the technology itself becomes a source of anxiety, not reassurance.
On paper, many RPM programs look impressive. They distribute devices, collect real-time data, and send alerts when readings fall outside a certain range. They check all the compliance boxes.
But for too many patients, the experience feels transactional. They see the numbers go in, but they don’t feel anyone is truly paying attention unless something is dangerously wrong. The follow-up, if it comes, is often from a rotating cast of call center staff, or worse, an automated text.
Patients know when their care has been outsourced to a machine. And when they sense that the “monitoring” in Remote Patient Monitoring is happening at a distance - both physically and emotionally - their trust erodes.
If you strip away the jargon, the features, and the compliance requirements, studies have revealed three things that patients want from their RPM experience:
These aren’t unreasonable asks; they're the same expectations patients bring to an in-person visit. The problem is that many RPM vendors have treated these human needs as optional, something to be “scaled” away in the name of efficiency.
Here’s the paradox: the more we remove the human layer from RPM, the less effective the technology becomes.
When patients don’t feel seen, they disengage. They stop taking readings, ignore follow-up calls, and start to see the program as busywork instead of a tool for improving their health. Over time, this disengagement leads to worse outcomes and wasted investment for providers.
For organizations operating under value-based care contracts, that’s a double hit: lower quality scores and higher avoidable costs.
The flip side is also true: when patients trust that someone is watching over them - and that this someone actually knows them - they engage more. Research on digital health shows the pattern clearly: when remote care feels like it replaces personal connection, patients lose trust. But when it strengthens the relationship, they share more context, ask questions, and stick with their care plans
That’s why the best RPM programs aren’t just data pipelines; they’re relationship pipelines. When care feels personal, patients share more, follow plans more closely, and need fewer acute interventions. In one study, health care providers said they placed high trust in RPM data, which helped them make better decisions..
And the data from Pew makes this crystal clear: skepticism toward AI in healthcare isn’t rooted in ignorance—it’s rooted in a deep desire for care to remain personal. In one survey, 60% of Americans said they would be uncomfortable if their provider relied on AI for diagnosis or treatment, and more than half worried it would harm the patient–provider relationship.
Too often, RPM vendors have optimized for device logistics, reimbursement codes, and data dashboards, while treating human engagement as an afterthought. It’s an easy trap: those parts are harder to measure, harder to standardize, and harder to automate.
But that’s exactly why they matter. If the goal is to drive real health outcomes, you can’t shortcut trust-building. You can’t swap a human relationship for a push notification and expect the same result.
A truly human-centered RPM model builds the technology around the relationship, not the other way around. That means:
These aren’t “soft” features. They’re the drivers that determine whether an RPM program delivers value or becomes another underused health tech experiment.
At Quokka Care, we’ve built our RPM platform on this principle: built on trust, powered by technology. Our coaches don’t just monitor data; they build relationships. They know a blood pressure spike might mean stress at work, a missed medication, or a salty takeout meal—not just a number on a dashboard.
That context is what turns readings into action, and action into results. It’s also what keeps patients engaged long after the novelty of a new device wears off.
If your RPM program is struggling with engagement, the solution probably isn’t more features, more automation, or another AI overlay. It’s doubling down on the human layer that makes patients feel seen.
The 60% of patients who are skeptical of AI aren't rejecting technology; they’re rejecting the idea that technology can replace the trust, empathy, and understanding they expect from care.
The best programs strike the balance. They start with great technology, like devices that just work, without a Geek Squad on speed dial, and interfaces that make data clear for provider. Then they pair that with a human connection patients can count on.
Healthcare organizations that get this right won’t just have higher engagement rates; they’ll have patients who stay loyal, healthier, and more satisfied. The bottom line is that in an era of rapid digital transformation, the biggest differentiator in RPM isn’t the device or the algorithm; it’s the relationship.