A Cost Evaluation of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services in England.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics - open
ISSN: 2509-4254
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoecon Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101700780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2024
01 Jul 2024
Historique:
accepted:
12
05
2024
medline:
2
7
2024
pubmed:
2
7
2024
entrez:
1
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Remote home monitoring services emerged as critical components of health care delivery from NHS England during the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to provide timely interventions and reduce health care system burden. Two types of service were offered: referral by community health services to home-based care to ensure the right people were admitted to the hospital at the right time (called COVID Oximetry@home, CO@h); and referral by hospital to support patients' transition from hospital to home (called COVID-19 Virtual Ward, CVW). The information collected for the oxygen levels and other symptoms was provided via digital means (technology-enabled) or over the phone (analogue-only submission mode). This study aimed to evaluate the costs of implementing remote home monitoring for COVID-19 patients across 26 sites in England during wave 2 of the pandemic. Understanding the operational and financial implications of these services from the NHS perspective is essential for effective resource allocation and service planning. We used a bottom-up costing approach at the intervention level to describe the costs of setting up and running the services. Twenty-six implementation sites reported the numbers of patients and staff involved in the service and other resources used. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis were used to assess cost variations and quantify the relationship between the number of users and costs while adjusting for other service characteristics. The mean cost per patient monitored was lower in the CO@h service compared with the CVW service (£527 vs £599). The mean cost per patient was lower for implementation sites using technology-enabled and analogue data submission modes compared with implementation sites using analogue-only modes for both CO@h (£515 vs £561) and CVW (£584 vs £612) services. The number of patients enrolled in the services and the service type significantly affected the mean cost per patient. Our analysis provides a framework for evaluating the costs of similar services in the future and shows that the implementation of these services benefit from the employment of tech-enabled data submission modes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Remote home monitoring services emerged as critical components of health care delivery from NHS England during the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to provide timely interventions and reduce health care system burden. Two types of service were offered: referral by community health services to home-based care to ensure the right people were admitted to the hospital at the right time (called COVID Oximetry@home, CO@h); and referral by hospital to support patients' transition from hospital to home (called COVID-19 Virtual Ward, CVW). The information collected for the oxygen levels and other symptoms was provided via digital means (technology-enabled) or over the phone (analogue-only submission mode). This study aimed to evaluate the costs of implementing remote home monitoring for COVID-19 patients across 26 sites in England during wave 2 of the pandemic. Understanding the operational and financial implications of these services from the NHS perspective is essential for effective resource allocation and service planning.
METHODS
METHODS
We used a bottom-up costing approach at the intervention level to describe the costs of setting up and running the services. Twenty-six implementation sites reported the numbers of patients and staff involved in the service and other resources used. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis were used to assess cost variations and quantify the relationship between the number of users and costs while adjusting for other service characteristics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean cost per patient monitored was lower in the CO@h service compared with the CVW service (£527 vs £599). The mean cost per patient was lower for implementation sites using technology-enabled and analogue data submission modes compared with implementation sites using analogue-only modes for both CO@h (£515 vs £561) and CVW (£584 vs £612) services. The number of patients enrolled in the services and the service type significantly affected the mean cost per patient.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis provides a framework for evaluating the costs of similar services in the future and shows that the implementation of these services benefit from the employment of tech-enabled data submission modes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38951349
doi: 10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3
pii: 10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : National Institute for Health and Care Research
ID : 16/138/17
Organisme : National Institute for Health and Care Research
ID : 16/138/31
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Tichopád A, Pecen L, Sedlák V. Could the new coronavirus have infected humans prior November 2019? PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8): e0248255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248255 . (PMID:34411115; PMCID:PMC8375974).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248255
pubmed: 34411115
pmcid: 8375974
Flynn D, Moloney E, Bhattarai N, Scott J, Breckons M, Avery L, et al. COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Health Policy Technol. 2020;9(4):673–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.003
pubmed: 32874853
pmcid: 7451057
Social Care Institute for Excellence. Hospital discharge and preventing unnecessary hospital admissions (COVID-19). 2022. https://www.scie.org.uk/care-providers/coronavirus-covid-19/commissioning/hospital-discharge-admissions . Accessed Dec 2023.
Vindrola-Padros C, Sidhu MS, Georghiou T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Singh KE, Tomini SM, et al. The implementation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;34:100799.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100799
pubmed: 33817610
pmcid: 8008987
Levitan RM. Pulse oximetry as a biomarker for early identification and hospitalization of COVID-19 pneumonia. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(8):785.
doi: 10.1111/acem.14052
pubmed: 32779867
pmcid: 7323007
Fulop N WH, Crellin N, Georghiou T, Herlitz L, Litchfield I et al. A rapid mixed methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Southampton: NIHR Health and Social Care Delivery Research Topic Report; 2022. https://doi.org/10.3310/FVQW4410 . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK595751/ . Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
NHS England and NHS Improvement. Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) standard operating procedure: COVID Oximetry@home; 2020. https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/covid-19-guidance-note-covid-oximetry-at-home/ . Accessed Dec 2023.
NHS England and NHS Improvement. Supporting hospital discharge: establishment of COVID virtual wards; 2021. https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/documents/supporting-hospital-discharge-establishment-of-covid-virtual-wards/ . Accessed Dec 2023.
Fulop NJ, Walton H, Crellin N, Georghiou T, Herlitz L, Litchfield I, et al. Technology-enabled and analogue models of remote home monitoring care for COVID-19: a rapid mixed-method evaluation of patient and staff experiences. A rapid mixed-methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2023.
NIHR RSET NB, Imperial College London, The Health Foundation, NHS England and NHS Improvement, COVID Oximetry @Home evaluation: interpretation of findings. 2021.
Vindrola-Padros C, Singh KE, Sidhu MS, Georghiou T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Tomini SM, et al. Remote home monitoring (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients: a rapid systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;37:100965.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100965
pubmed: 34179736
pmcid: 8219406
Sherlaw-Johnson C, Georghiou T, Morris S, Crellin NE, Litchfield I, Massou E, et al. The impact of remote home monitoring of people with COVID-19 using pulse oximetry: a national population and observational study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;45:101318.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101318
pubmed: 35252824
pmcid: 8886180
Georghiou T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Massou E, Morris S, Crellin NE, Herlitz L, et al. The impact of post-hospital remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients using pulse oximetry: a national observational study using hospital activity data. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;48:101441.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101441
pubmed: 35582125
pmcid: 9098201
Walton H, Vindrola-Padros C, Crellin NE, Sidhu MS, Herlitz L, Litchfield I, et al. Patients’ experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: a rapid mixed-methods study. Health Expect. 2022;25(5):2386–404.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13548
pubmed: 35796686
pmcid: 9349790
Sidhu M, Walton H, Crellin N, Ellins J, Herlitz L, Litchfield I, et al. Staff experiences of training and delivery of remote home monitoring services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in England: a mixed-methods study. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2023;28(3):171–80.
doi: 10.1177/13558196231172586
pubmed: 37366220
pmcid: 10300624
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction . Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. NICE process and methods [PMG36]; 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/introduction-to-health-technology-evaluation . Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
O’Beirne M, Reid R, Zwicker K, Sterling P, Sokol E, Flemons W, et al. The costs of developing, implementing, and operating a safety learning system in community practice. J Patient Saf. 2013;9(4):211–8.
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000052
pubmed: 24257064
Severens JLHT, Adang E, Wensing M. Economic evaluation of implementation strategies In: Wensing MGR, Grimshaw J, editors. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care, Chap. 23. 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley; 2013. p. 389–405.
Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2): e11330.
doi: 10.2196/11330
pubmed: 30777845
pmcid: 6399572
Chapko MK, Liu CF, Perkins M, Li YF, Fortney JC, Maciejewski ML. Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down. Health Econ. 2009;18(10):1188–201.
doi: 10.1002/hec.1422
pubmed: 19097041
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Curtis LA, Burns A. Care 2020. Unit costs of health and social care. PSSRU, University of Kent. 2020. ISBN 978-1-911353-12-6.
Beaney T, Clarke J, Alboksmaty A, Flott K, Fowler A, Benger J, et al. Population-level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with COVID-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design. Emerg Med J. 2022;39(8):575–82.
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2022-212378
pubmed: 35418406
Caffery LJ, Bradford NK, Wickramasinghe SI, Hayman N, Smith AC. Outcomes of using telehealth for the provision of healthcare to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017;41(1):48–53.
doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12600
pubmed: 27868300
Nunan J, Clarke D, Malakouti A, Tannetta D, Calthrop A, Xu XH, et al. Triage into the community for COVID-19 (TICC-19) patients pathway-service evaluation of the virtual monitoring of patients with COVID pneumonia. Acute Med. 2020;19(4):183–91.
doi: 10.52964/AMJA.0826
pubmed: 33215171
Schultz K, Vickery H, Campbell K, Wheeldon M, Barrett-Beck L, Rushbrook E. Implementation of a virtual ward as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aust Health Rev. 2021;45(4):433–41.
doi: 10.1071/AH20240
pubmed: 33840420
Chang J, Savage SJ, Waldman DM. Estimating willingness to pay for online health services with discrete-choice experiments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15:491–500.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0316-z
pubmed: 28290107
Salisbury C, Murphy M, Duncan P. The impact of digital-first consultations on workload in general practice: modeling study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6): e18203.
doi: 10.2196/18203
pubmed: 32543441
pmcid: 7327596
Mistry H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare.e Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(1):1–6.
doi: 10.1258/jtt.2011.110505
pubmed: 22101609
Sicotte C, Lehoux P, Van Doesburg N, Cardinal G, Leblanc Y. A cost-effectiveness analysis of interactive paediatric telecardiology. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(2):78–83.
doi: 10.1258/135763304773391503
pubmed: 15068642
Newbould J, Abel G, Ball S, Corbett J, Elliott M, Exley J, et al. Evaluation of telephone first approach to demand management in English general practice: observational study. BMJ. 2017;358:j4197.
Pryor RJ, Vokes R, Anderson D, Bearman G. Virtual infection prevention—the next frontier. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42(11):1374–5.
doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.1404
pubmed: 33397527