Effectiveness of an interprofessional assessment and management approach for people with chronic low back disorders delivered via virtual care: A randomized controlled trial pilot intervention.

Objective: Virtual care for chronic conditions has seen uptake due to COVID-19. Evaluation of virtual models is important to ensure evidence-based practice. There is a paucity of research in the use of virtual care for management of chronic back disorders. The objective of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of a team-based virtual care model for back disorder assessment where a physical therapist uses virtual care to join a nurse practitioner and patient in a rural Saskatchewan, Canada community. Methods: Sixty-four rural adults with chronic back disorders were randomly allocated to receive either: (1) team-based virtual care (n = 24); (2) care from an urban physical therapist travelling to community (n = 20); or (3) care from a rural nurse practitioner (n = 20). The team-based care group involved a nurse practitioner located with a rural patient, and a physical therapist joining using virtual care. The physical therapist alone and the nurse practitioner alone groups received in-person assessments. Groups with a physical therapist involved had follow-up treatments by in-person physical therapy. Outcomes over six months included pain, disability, back beliefs, satisfaction, quality-adjusted health status and management-related costs. Results: There were no significant differences for pain, disability, back beliefs and satisfaction between groups. The average cost per patient for implementing in-person physical therapist assessment ($135) was higher compared with the team over virtual care ($118) and NP care ($59). Conclusion: Primary outcomes were not different by group. Physical therapist alone was more costly than other groups. Future research should include more participants, longer follow-up time and refined cost parameters. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02225535; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02225535 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lqLTCNF7).

Economic Evaluation of Telerobotic Ultrasound Technology to Remotely Provide Ultrasound Services in Rural and Remote Communities.

INTRODUCTION: Telerobotic ultrasound technology allows radiologists and sonographers to remotely provide ultrasound services in underserved areas. This study aimed to compare costs associated with using telerobotic ultrasound to provide ultrasound services in rural and remote communities to costs associated with alternate models. METHODS: A cost-minimization approach was used to compare four ultrasound service delivery models: telerobotic ultrasound (Model 1), telerobotic ultrasound and an itinerant sonographer (Model 2), itinerant sonographer without telerobotic ultrasound (Model 3), and travel to another community for all exams (Model 4). In Models 1-3, travel was assumed when exams could not be successfully performed telerobotically or by an itinerant sonographer. A publicly funded healthcare payer perspective was used for the reference case and a societal perspective was used for a secondary non-reference case. Costs were based on the literature and experience using telerobotic ultrasound in Saskatchewan, Canada. Costs were expressed in 2020 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Average cost per ultrasound exam was $342, $323, $368, and $478 for Models 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, from a publicly funded healthcare payer perspective, and $461, $355, $447, and $849, respectively, from a societal perspective. In one-way sensitivity analyses, Model 2 was the lowest cost from a payer perspective for communities with population >2075 people, distance >350 km from the nearest ultrasound facility, or >47% of the population eligible for publicly funded medical transportation. CONCLUSION: Health systems may wish to consider solutions such as telerobotic ultrasound and itinerant sonographers to reduce healthcare costs and improve access to ultrasound in rural and remote communities.

A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mifepristone-Misoprostol Medical Abortions in the First Year at the Regina General Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: In July 2017, mifepristone-misoprostol (mife/miso) became available for medical abortion at the Regina General Hospital's Women's Health Centre (RGH WHC). We investigated whether the proportion of abortions performed medically changed as a result of the introduction of mife/miso, whether using mife/miso instead of the surgical alternative would result in cost savings to the health care system, and whether abortion type differed between patients residing in and outside of Regina. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all 306 medical abortions from the RGH WHC between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. We obtained medical and surgical abortion information from that year and the preceding one from an administrative database. Statistical methods were used to calculate the costs of mife/miso, methotrexate-misoprostol (MTX/miso) and surgical abortion, as well as cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: The proportion of medical abortions increased from 15.4% in 2016/2017 to 28.7% in 2017/2018 (χ21 = 54.629; P < 0.001). Calculated costs for mife/miso, with and without complications were CAD $1173.70 and CAD $1708.90, respectively, versus CAD $871.10 and CAD $1204.10, respectively, for MTX/miso, and CAD $1445.95 and CAD $2261.95, respectively, for hospital-based vacuum aspiration. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $318 (the cost of mife/miso), statistical modelling showed a 61.3% chance that mife/miso was more cost-effective than surgical abortion and a 90.8% chance that it was more cost-effective than MTX/miso. Patients from Regina were significantly more likely (χ21 = 29.406; P < 0.001) to receive a medical abortion (34.9% of abortions) than those living outside of Regina (19.6% of abortions). CONCLUSION: The proportion of abortions completed medically increased significantly over the period studied. Patients from Regina were more likely to receive medical abortion during both time periods. Mife/miso had a >50% probability of cost-effectiveness over both surgical and MTX/miso options.

Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine.

Increasing intensification in swine production has led to new and specialized technologies, but the occupational health and safety impacts are rarely quantified in the business plans for adoption. Needle-less injection has potential to increase productivity and eliminate needle stick injury in workers, but it is not clear whether these benefits offset high capital investment and potential increases in musculoskeletal loads. This economic evaluation employed probabilistic scenario analysis using injury, cost, and production data gathered from interviews with swine producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. After adoption of needle-less injection, rates of needle-stick injury went down with no measureable effect on upper limb musculoskeletal disorders, resulting in lower health and safety costs for needle-less injectors. Needle-less injection duration was 40% faster once workers acclimatized, but large start-up costs mean economic benefits are realized only after the first year. The incremental benefit cost ratio promoted adoption of needle-less injectors over conventional needles for the base case of a 1200 sow barn; the conventional method is beneficial for barns with 600 sows or less. Findings indicate that well-designed technologies have the potential to achieve the dual ergonomics goals of enhancing human wellbeing and system performance. We anticipate that the economic and decision models developed in this study can be applied to other new technologies in agriculture and animal production.

Advancing Interprofessional Primary Health Care Services in Rural Settings for People with Chronic Low Back Disorders: Protocol of a Community-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back disorders (CLBDs) are a substantial burden on individuals and societies, and impact up to 20% of Canadians. Rural and remote residents are approximately 30% more likely to have CLBDs. Reduced access to appropriate team-based health services, including physical therapy, is a key factor that may magnify the impact of CLBD on pain, physical function, overall quality of life, health-related system costs, and individual costs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project is to evaluate the validity, comparative effectiveness, costs, barriers, and facilitators of an interprofessional management approach for people with CLBDs, delivered via telehealth. METHODS: This project will examine 3 different health care delivery options: (1) in-person nurse practitioner (NP); (2) in-person physical therapist (PT); and (3) a team approach utilizing an NP (in-person) and a PT joining via telehealth. Validity of the telehealth team care model will be explored by comparing the diagnostic categorization and management recommendations arising from participants with CLBD who undergo a team telehealth, in-person NP, and in-person PT assessment. Comparative effectiveness and costs will be examined using a community-based randomized controlled trial in a rural Saskatchewan community with limited PT services. The 3 arms of the trial are: (1) usual care delivered by a local rural NP; (2) a local NP and an urban-based PT joining via telehealth; and (3) face-to-face services by a PT traveling to the community. Patient-reported outcomes of pain, physical function, quality of life, satisfaction, and CLBD care-related costs will be evaluated up to 6 months after the intervention. Patient and provider experiences with the team telehealth approach will be explored through qualitative interviews. RESULTS: The study was funded in July 2013 and the University of Saskatchewan Biomedical Research Ethics Board approved the study in November 2013. Participant recruitment began in September 2014 and data collection was completed in December 2015. Analysis is in progress and results are anticipated in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: CLBD is a widespread public health problem, particularly in rural and remote areas, which requires new innovative approaches to deliver appropriate health care. The results of this project will inform the development of evidence-informed approaches and community-based implementation strategies to improve access to PT services in primary health care settings in other rural and remote underserved areas. Findings might also provide a framework for cost-effective and patient-centered models of service delivery for the management of other chronic conditions. CLINICALTRIAL: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02225535; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02225535 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lqLTCNF7).