Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Remote Orthopedic Consultations: Randomized Controlled Trial

Astrid Buvik, Trine S Bergmo, Einar Bugge, Arvid Smaabrekke, Tom Wilsgaard, Jan Abel Olsen, Astrid Buvik, Trine S Bergmo, Einar Bugge, Arvid Smaabrekke, Tom Wilsgaard, Jan Abel Olsen

Abstract

Background: Telemedicine consultations using real-time videoconferencing has the potential to improve access and quality of care, avoid patient travels, and reduce health care costs.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of an orthopedic videoconferencing service between the University Hospital of North Norway and a regional medical center in a remote community located 148 km away.

Methods: An economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial of 389 patients (559 consultations) referred to the hospital for an orthopedic outpatient consultation was conducted. The intervention group (199 patients) was randomized to receive video-assisted remote orthopedic consultations (302 consultations), while the control group (190 patients) received standard care in outpatient consultation at the hospital (257 consultations). A societal perspective was adopted for calculating costs. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Resource use and health outcomes were collected alongside the trial at baseline and at 12 months follow-up using questionnaires, patient charts, and consultation records. These were valued using externally collected data on unit costs and QALY weights. An extended sensitivity analysis was conducted to address the robustness of the results.

Results: This study showed that using videoconferencing for orthopedic consultations in the remote clinic costs less than standard outpatient consultations at the specialist hospital, as long as the total number of patient consultations exceeds 151 per year. For a total workload of 300 consultations per year, the annual cost savings amounted to €18,616. If costs were calculated from a health sector perspective, rather than a societal perspective, the number of consultations needed to break even was 183.

Conclusions: This study showed that providing video-assisted orthopedic consultations to a remote clinic in Northern Norway, rather than having patients travel to the specialist hospital for consultations, is cost-effective from both a societal and health sector perspective. This conclusion holds as long as the activity exceeds 151 and 183 patient consultations per year, respectively.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616837; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT00616837 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/762dZPoKX).

Keywords: QALY; cost-effectiveness analysis; economic evaluation; orthopedics; outpatients; randomized controlled trial; remote consultation; telemedicine; videoconferencing.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Astrid Buvik, Trine S Bergmo, Einar Bugge, Arvid Smaabrekke, Tom Wilsgaard, Jan Abel Olsen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 19.02.2019.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Norway and the area where the study patients were recruited and location of the University Hospital of North Norway and Regional Medical Center (inserted).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total annual costs of the teleorthopedic service including the Skype for Business alternative.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cost per patient for base case and the Skype for Business alternative.

References

    1. Ministry of Health and Care Services. 2011. Apr 8, [2018-01-03]. Meld. St. 16 (2010–2011). Report to the Storting (white paper). Summary — National Health and Care Services Plan
    1. Patient travels. 2018. [2018-03-20]. Compensation of patient travels .
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of Health. 2015. [2017-01-17]. Data from the specialist health services (Samdata 2014) .
    1. Pastora-Bernal JM, Martín-Valero R, Barón-López FJ, Estebanez-Pérez MJ. Evidence of benefit of telerehabitation after orthopedic surgery: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Dec 28;19(4):e142. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6836.
    1. Bashshur RL, Shannon G, Krupinski EA, Grigsby J. Sustaining and realizing the promise of telemedicine. Telemed J E Health. 2013 May;19(5):339–45. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2012.0282.
    1. Jarvis-Selinger S, Chan E, Payne R, Plohman K, Ho K. Clinical telehealth across the disciplines: lessons learned. Telemed J E Health. 2008 Sep;14(7):720–5. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2007.0108.
    1. Steel K, Cox D, Garry H. Therapeutic videoconferencing interventions for the treatment of long-term conditions. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(3):109–17. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2010.100318.
    1. Haukipuro K, Ohinmaa A, Winblad I, Linden T, Vuolio S. The feasibility of telemedicine for orthopaedic outpatient clinics--a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2000;6(4):193–8. doi: 10.1258/1357633001935347.
    1. Couturier P, Tyrrell J, Tonetti J, Rhul C, Woodward C, Franco A. Feasibility of orthopaedic teleconsulting in a geriatric rehabilitation service. J Telemed Telecare. 1998;4(Suppl 1):85–7. doi: 10.1258/1357633981931597.
    1. Aarnio P, Lamminen H, Lepistö J, Alho A. A prospective study of teleconferencing for orthopaedic consultations. J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5(1):62–6. doi: 10.1258/1357633991932405.
    1. Vuolio S, Winblad I, Ohinmaa A, Haukipuro K. Videoconferencing for orthopaedic outpatients: one-year follow-up. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(1):8–11. doi: 10.1258/135763303321159620.
    1. Caffery LJ, Taylor M, North JB, Smith AC. Tele-orthopaedics: a snapshot of services in Australia. J Telemed Telecare. 2017 Dec;23(10):835–41. doi: 10.1177/1357633X17732800.
    1. Buvik A, Bugge E, Knutsen G, Småbrekke A, Wilsgaard T. Quality of care for remote orthopaedic consultations using telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Dec 8;16:483. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1717-7.
    1. Sharareh B, Schwarzkopf R. Effectiveness of telemedical applications in postoperative follow-up after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):918–22. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.019.
    1. Buvik A, Bugge E, Knutsen G, Småbrekke A, Wilsgaard T. Patient satisfaction with remote orthopaedic consultation by using telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Jan 1;:1357633X18783921. doi: 10.1177/1357633X18783921.
    1. Sathiyakumar V, Apfeld JC, Obremskey WT, Thakore RV, Sethi MK. Prospective randomized controlled trial using telemedicine for follow-ups in an orthopedic trauma population: a pilot study. J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Mar;29(3):e139–45. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000189.
    1. Jacklin PB, Roberts JA, Wallace P, Haines A, Harrison R, Barber JA, Thompson SG, Lewis L, Currell R, Parker S, Wainwright P, Virtual Outreach Project Group Virtual outreach: economic evaluation of joint teleconsultations for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion. Br Med J. 2003 Jul 12;327(7406):84. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7406.84.
    1. McGill A, North J. An analysis of an ongoing trial of rural videoconference fracture clinics. J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Dec;18(8):470–2. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2012.gth110.
    1. Rowell PD, Pincus P, White M, Smith AC. Telehealth in paediatric orthopaedic surgery in Queensland: a 10-year review. ANZ J Surg. 2014 Dec;84(12):955–9. doi: 10.1111/ans.12753.
    1. Baruffaldi F, Giangiacomo L, Paltrinieri A, Toni A. Videoconferencing for distance training in orthopaedics. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(4):241–2. doi: 10.1258/135763303322225607.
    1. Engle X, Aird J, Tho L, Bintcliffe F, Monsell F, Gollogly J, Noor S. Combining continuing education with expert consultation via telemedicine in Cambodia. Trop Doct. 2014 Apr;44(2):62–8. doi: 10.1177/0049475513515654.
    1. Zanaboni P, Wootton R. Adoption of telemedicine: from pilot stage to routine delivery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:1. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-1.
    1. Scott Kruse C, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Jan;24(1):4–12. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16674087. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16674087.
    1. Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, Inzitari M, Shepperd S. Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD002098. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002098.pub2.
    1. Bergmo TS. How to measure costs and benefits of eHealth interventions: an overview of methods and frameworks. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(11):e254. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4521.
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods For The Economic Evaluation Of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. Nov 24, p. 464.
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of Health. 2012. Nov 2, [2018-01-17]. Economic evaluation of health services - A guide .
    1. Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):165–71.
    1. Patient Travels. 2018. [2018-03-20]. User fees and rates .
    1. Wisløff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):367–75. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095–108.
    1. Ohinmaa A, Vuolio S, Haukipuro K, Winblad I. A cost-minimization analysis of orthopaedic consultations using videoconferencing in comparison with conventional consulting. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(5):283–9. doi: 10.1177/1357633X0200800507.
    1. Wan AC, Gul Y, Darzi A. Realtime remote consultation in the outpatient clinic--experience at a teaching hospital. J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5(Suppl 1):S70–1.
    1. Wallace P, Haines A, Harrison R, Barber J, Thompson S, Jacklin P, Roberts J, Lewis L, Wainwright P, Virtual Outreach Project Group Joint teleconsultations (virtual outreach) versus standard outpatient appointments for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002 Jun 8;359(9322):1961–8.
    1. Benger JR, Noble SM, Coast J, Kendall JM. The safety and effectiveness of minor injuries telemedicine. Emerg Med J. 2004 Jul;21(4):438–45.
    1. Brennan JA, Kealy JA, Gerardi LH, Shih R, Allegra J, Sannipoli L, Lutz D. Telemedicine in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5(1):18–22. doi: 10.1258/1357633991932342.
    1. Tachakra S, Loane M, Uche CU. A follow-up study of remote trauma teleconsultations. J Telemed Telecare. 2000;6(6):330–4. doi: 10.1258/1357633001936003.
    1. Wallace P, Barber J, Clayton W, Currell R, Fleming K, Garner P, Haines A, Harrison R, Jacklin P, Jarrett C, Jayasuriya R, Lewis L, Parker S, Roberts J, Thompson S, Wainwright P. Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Dec;8(50):1–106.
    1. Olsen JA, Richardson J. Production gains from health care: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses? Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jul;49(1):17–26. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00116-1.
    1. Wootton R, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, Eedy DJ, Hicks N, Lotery HE, Mathews C, Paisley J, Steele K, Loane MA. Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care: societal cost-benefit analysis. Br Med J. 2000 May 6;320(7244):1252–6.
    1. Abelsen B, Gaski M, Pedersen EH, Skipperud M. [Is decentralisation of specialised healthcare beneficial in social and financial terms?] Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 May 6;124(9):1256–9.
    1. Whitten P, Adams I. Success and failure: a case study of two rural telemedicine projects. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(3):125–9. doi: 10.1258/135763303767149906.
    1. Yellowlees PM. Successfully developing a telemedicine system. J Telemed Telecare. 2005 Oct;11(7):331–5. doi: 10.1258/135763305774472024.
    1. Reardon T. Research findings and strategies for assessing telemedicine costs. Telemed J E Health. 2005 Jun;11(3):348–69. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.348.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren