# AI-driven Optimisation of Quality of Recovery (QoR) in Remote Patient Monitoring

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23631 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.23631/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 2 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Remote patient monitoring using artificial intelligence: Current state, applications, and challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.10009/) (2023)
- [Multi-Modal AI for Remote Patient Monitoring in Cancer Care](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.00949/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Remote patient monitoring depends on patient-reported data to capture the subjective dimension of recovery that devices cannot measure. The Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) survey is the gold-standard instrument for this purpose. It was designed and validated for occasional in-hospital assessment, yet remote monitoring now administers it to patients daily. In our own post-surgical deployment, only 55% of patients submitted the survey more than 14 days of 30 monitoring days. We developed QoR-compact, a five-item daily input for the RPM prediction pathway. Setting a deployment-driven target of one-third of the daily items, we exhaustively evaluated all 3,003 five-question subsets of the QoR-15 and tested whether the best of them matches the full instrument in predicting near-term postoperative recovery severity. QoR-compact achieves a mean AUC-ROC of 0.968 (95% CI 0.915-0.988), statistically comparable to the 0.964 baseline obtained with one-third of the items. Patient-level backtesting indicates that it tracks readmission events as faithfully as the full form. Its five items span the physical and psychological axes of recovery: Q3 (feeling rested), Q9 (feeling comfortable and in control), Q10 (general well-being), Q12 (severe pain), and Q14 (feeling worried or anxious). The QoR-15 remains the gold-standard measure of recovery; QoR-compact complements it as a shorter daily input designed for prediction. This parity provides the basis for a prospective study of whether a lighter daily input is, in turn, completed more consistently. External validation on larger cohorts is required before clinical use.