Digitization of Follow-Up Care in Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery With Video Consultations: Health Economic Evaluation Study From a Health Provider's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for health care digitization as issued with the Riyadh Declaration led to an uptake in telemedicine to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Evaluations based on clinical data are needed to support stakeholders' decision-making on the long-term implementation of digital health. OBJECTIVE: This health economic evaluation aims to provide the first German analysis of the suitability of video consultations in the follow-up care of patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery, investigate the financial impact on hospital operations and personnel costs, and provide a basis for decisions on digitizing outpatient care. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial that evaluated video consultations versus face-to-face consultations in the follow-up care of patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery at a German university hospital. We recruited 60 patients who had previously been treated conservatively or surgically for various knee or shoulder injuries. A digital health app and a browser-based software were used to conduct video consultations. The suitability of telemedicine was assessed using the Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Economic analyses included average time spent by physician per consultation, associated personnel costs and capacities for additional treatable patients, and the break-even point for video consultation software fees. RESULTS: After 4 withdrawals in each arm, data from a total of 52 patients (telemedicine group: n=26; control group: n=26) were used for our analyses. In the telemedicine group, 77% (20/26) of all patients agreed that telemedicine provided for their health care needs, and 69% (18/26) found telemedicine an acceptable way to receive health care services. In addition, no significant difference was found in the change of patient utility between groups after 3 months (mean 0.02, SD 0.06 vs mean 0.07, SD 0.17; P=.35). Treatment duration was significantly shorter in the intervention group (mean 8.23, SD 4.45 minutes vs mean 10.92, SD 5.58 minutes; P=.02). The use of telemedicine saved 25% (€2.14 [US $2.35]/€8.67 [US $9.53]) in personnel costs and increased the number of treatable patients by 172 annually, assuming 2 hours of video consultations per week. Sensitivity analysis for scaling up video consultations to 10% of the hospital's outpatient cases resulted in personnel cost savings of €73,056 (US $ 80,275.39) for a senior physician. A total of 23 video consultations per month were required to recoup the software fees of telemedicine through reduced personnel costs (break-even point ranging from 12-38 in the sensitivity analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports stakeholders' decision-making on the long-term implementation of digital health by demonstrating that video consultations in the follow-up care of patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery result in cost savings and productivity gains for clinics with no negative impact on patient utility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023445; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00023445.

Time and personnel costs associated with adverse event (AE) management among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

OBJECTIVES: Novel therapies improve clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), although adverse event (AE) profiles differ. This study evaluated time and personnel costs of AE management among healthcare professionals (HCPs) treating patients with CLL with novel therapies. METHODS: A non-interventional prospective survey was conducted over 2 months. Eligible HCPs reported the time per day spent performing AE management activities for CLL patients treated with acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, or venetoclax. Mean time and personnel costs (USD) per activity were summarized and used to estimate the total annual costs of AE management for an average-sized oncology practice. RESULTS: For an average-sized practice (28 HCPs with an average of 56 CLL patients), the mean annual personnel cost of AE management for CLL patients on novel agents was estimated at $115,733. The personnel cost associated with acalabrutinib ($20,912) was less than half that of ibrutinib ($53,801) and venetoclax ($41,884), potentially due to fewer severe AEs and less time spent by oncologists managing AEs compared to other HCP types. CONCLUSION: The substantial burden of AE management for patients with CLL may vary by treatment used. Acalabrutinib was associated with lower annual costs of AE management at an oncology practice level compared to ibrutinib and venetoclax.

A comparative cost analysis between two quick diagnosis units of different levels of complexity.

Aim: To compare by micro-costing the costs incurred by quick diagnosis units of tertiary and second-level hospitals. Patients & methods: We included 407 patients from a tertiary and secondary hospital unit. A bottom-up approach was applied. Results: Cost per patient was €577.5 ± 219.6 in the tertiary versus €394.7 ± 92.58 in the secondary unit (p = 0.0559). Mean number of visits and ratio of successive/first visits were significantly higher in the former (3.098 and 2.07 vs 2.123 and 1.12, respectively). Personnel and indirect costs including their percent contribution to overall costs accounted for the main differences. Conclusion: A greater volume of appointments, number of staff and staff time and a greater complexity of patients from the tertiary hospital unit justified the differences in cost outcomes.

Time and Resources Needed to Document Patients with Breast Cancer from Primary Diagnosis to Follow-up - Results of a Single-center Study.

Aim: Certification of breast centers helps improve the quality of care but requires additional resources, particularly for documentation. There are currently no published data on the actual staff costs and financial resources required for such documentation. The aim of this study was to determine the time and resources required to document a patient with primary breast cancer from diagnosis to the end of follow-up, to establish a database for future strategic decisions. Material and Methods: All diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of patients with primary breast cancer were recorded at the University Breast Center of Franconia. All time points for documentation were evaluated using structured interviews. The times required to document a representative number of patients were determined and combined with the staff costs of the different professional groups, to calculate the financial resources required for documentation. Results: A total of 494 time points for documentation were identified. The study also identified 21 departments and 20 different professional groups involved in the documentation. The majority (54 %) of documentation was done by physicians. 62 % of all documentation involved outpatients. The results of different scenarios for the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of breast cancer patients in a certified breast center showed that the time required for documentation can be as much as 105 hours, costing € 4135. Conclusion: This analysis shows the substantial staffing and financial costs required for documentation in certified centers. A multi-center study will be carried out to compare the costs for certified breast centers of varying sizes with the costs of non-certified care facilities.