Telehealth versus in-person delivery of an occupational therapy home visiting service: A cost analysis

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Feby Savira, Suzanne Robinson, Rebecca Grant, Toni Heinemann, Lisa Barry, Rachel Lommerzheim, Kristie Harper
{"title":"Telehealth versus in-person delivery of an occupational therapy home visiting service: A cost analysis","authors":"Feby Savira,&nbsp;Suzanne Robinson,&nbsp;Rebecca Grant,&nbsp;Toni Heinemann,&nbsp;Lisa Barry,&nbsp;Rachel Lommerzheim,&nbsp;Kristie Harper","doi":"10.1111/1440-1630.70036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>It is important to understand the cost implications of occupational therapy home visiting services, delivered using different modalities, supporting patients after discharge from the hospital. This study aimed to compare the costs of an occupational therapy home visiting service delivered via telehealth compared to services delivered in person, including the costs associated with any resultant adverse events.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Cost analysis was conducted using data from a retrospective cohort study of adult patients recently discharged from two hospitals who received an occupational therapy home visiting service, including environmental assessment, provision of equipment, and home modifications. Health-care system costs were quantified and compared between telehealth and in-person delivery over the period 2020–2022. Total costs, cost per person, and cost savings, as well as contributors to cost savings, are reported.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Consumer and Community Involvement</h3>\n \n <p>This cost analysis study had no consumer or community involvement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Cost data were reviewed for a total of 537 patients (telehealth, n = 271, including 56 ‘hybrid’ patients; face-to-face, n = 266). In-person group had a greater number of overall encounters compared to the telehealth group, particularly with more frequent use of emergency and inpatient care. Telehealth resulted in a 34% cost reduction compared to in-person care, equivalent to $4 million in savings to the health-care system or a saving of $1186 per telehealth encounter. Telehealth savings were derived from lower number of inpatient and emergency encounters, as well as reduced patient-related travel expenses. For repeat emergency and inpatient encounters, the total cost was $601,909 (82%) less for fall events and $31,772 (33%) less for delirium events, whereas the cost was higher for pressure injury events ($430,161 vs. $29,313 in in-person group).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Telehealth occupational therapy home assessments yielded cost savings over traditional in-person visits, attributed to fewer inpatient and emergency visits and lower travel costs. The cost-saving effect was observed for fall and delirium events, but not for pressure injury events, suggesting it may not be appropriate for all conditions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY</h3>\n \n <p>Occupational therapists help patients recover at home after hospital stays. They assess home safety and provide education and equipment like rails and shower chairs. Usually, they visit patients' homes, which can be costly and time-consuming. This study explored if telehealth could be a cheaper alternative. Patients received occupational therapy between 2020 and 2022, after leaving hospital. The costs were collected from the hospital for service delivery, any health service use, and we looked at if these patients had any problems after discharge such as falls, pressure injuries, or delirium and the costs of these. Overall, telehealth was 34% cheaper, saving the health system around $4 million, or $1186 per visit. Most of the savings came from fewer hospital visits and less travel. But for pressure injuries, telehealth ended up costing more. This shows that telehealth may not be the best option for every situation. Telehealth can be helpful and cost less to deliver occupational therapy home visiting services; however, we need to make sure this is directed to the right patients.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55418,"journal":{"name":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","volume":"72 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1440-1630.70036","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1440-1630.70036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

It is important to understand the cost implications of occupational therapy home visiting services, delivered using different modalities, supporting patients after discharge from the hospital. This study aimed to compare the costs of an occupational therapy home visiting service delivered via telehealth compared to services delivered in person, including the costs associated with any resultant adverse events.

Methods

Cost analysis was conducted using data from a retrospective cohort study of adult patients recently discharged from two hospitals who received an occupational therapy home visiting service, including environmental assessment, provision of equipment, and home modifications. Health-care system costs were quantified and compared between telehealth and in-person delivery over the period 2020–2022. Total costs, cost per person, and cost savings, as well as contributors to cost savings, are reported.

Consumer and Community Involvement

This cost analysis study had no consumer or community involvement.

Results

Cost data were reviewed for a total of 537 patients (telehealth, n = 271, including 56 ‘hybrid’ patients; face-to-face, n = 266). In-person group had a greater number of overall encounters compared to the telehealth group, particularly with more frequent use of emergency and inpatient care. Telehealth resulted in a 34% cost reduction compared to in-person care, equivalent to $4 million in savings to the health-care system or a saving of $1186 per telehealth encounter. Telehealth savings were derived from lower number of inpatient and emergency encounters, as well as reduced patient-related travel expenses. For repeat emergency and inpatient encounters, the total cost was $601,909 (82%) less for fall events and $31,772 (33%) less for delirium events, whereas the cost was higher for pressure injury events ($430,161 vs. $29,313 in in-person group).

Conclusion

Telehealth occupational therapy home assessments yielded cost savings over traditional in-person visits, attributed to fewer inpatient and emergency visits and lower travel costs. The cost-saving effect was observed for fall and delirium events, but not for pressure injury events, suggesting it may not be appropriate for all conditions.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Occupational therapists help patients recover at home after hospital stays. They assess home safety and provide education and equipment like rails and shower chairs. Usually, they visit patients' homes, which can be costly and time-consuming. This study explored if telehealth could be a cheaper alternative. Patients received occupational therapy between 2020 and 2022, after leaving hospital. The costs were collected from the hospital for service delivery, any health service use, and we looked at if these patients had any problems after discharge such as falls, pressure injuries, or delirium and the costs of these. Overall, telehealth was 34% cheaper, saving the health system around $4 million, or $1186 per visit. Most of the savings came from fewer hospital visits and less travel. But for pressure injuries, telehealth ended up costing more. This shows that telehealth may not be the best option for every situation. Telehealth can be helpful and cost less to deliver occupational therapy home visiting services; however, we need to make sure this is directed to the right patients.

远程医疗与亲自交付的职业治疗家访服务:成本分析
重要的是要了解使用不同方式提供的职业治疗家访服务的成本影响,支持出院后的患者。本研究旨在比较通过远程医疗提供的职业治疗家访服务与亲自提供的服务的成本,包括与任何由此产生的不良事件相关的成本。方法采用回顾性队列研究的数据,对最近从两家医院出院的接受职业治疗家访服务的成年患者进行成本分析,包括环境评估、设备提供和家庭改造。对2020-2022年期间远程医疗和现场服务的医疗保健系统成本进行了量化和比较。报告了总成本、人均成本、成本节约以及成本节约的贡献者。消费者和社区参与这项成本分析研究没有消费者或社区参与。结果537例患者(远程医疗,n = 271,包括56例“混合型”患者;面对面,n = 266)。与远程保健组相比,面对面组的总体就诊次数更多,特别是更频繁地使用急诊和住院治疗。与面对面护理相比,远程保健的成本降低了34%,相当于为保健系统节省了400万美元,或每次远程保健就诊节省了1186美元。远程保健节省的原因是住院和急诊次数减少,以及与病人有关的差旅费用减少。对于重复急诊和住院患者,跌倒事件的总成本减少了601,909美元(82%),谵妄事件的总成本减少了31,772美元(33%),而压力损伤事件的成本更高(430,161美元,而现场组为29,313美元)。结论远程医疗职业治疗家庭评估比传统的现场就诊节省了成本,原因是住院和急诊次数较少,旅行成本较低。在跌倒和谵妄事件中观察到成本节约效果,但在压力损伤事件中没有观察到成本节约效果,这表明它可能并不适用于所有情况。职业治疗师帮助病人在住院后在家康复。他们评估家庭安全,并提供教育和设备,如轨道和淋浴椅。通常,他们会去病人家里,这既昂贵又耗时。这项研究探讨了远程医疗是否可以成为一种更便宜的选择。患者在出院后的2020年至2022年期间接受了职业治疗。我们从医院收集了服务提供的费用,任何健康服务的使用,我们看这些病人出院后是否有任何问题,比如跌倒,压力伤害,或者精神错乱以及这些的费用。总体而言,远程医疗便宜34%,为医疗系统节省了约400万美元,即每次就诊1186美元。大部分的节省来自于更少的医院就诊和更少的旅行。但对于压力伤害,远程医疗最终花费更多。这表明,远程医疗可能不是所有情况下的最佳选择。远程保健有助于提供职业治疗家访服务,而且费用较低;然而,我们需要确保这是针对正确的病人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal is a leading international peer reviewed publication presenting influential, high quality innovative scholarship and research relevant to occupational therapy. The aim of the journal is to be a leader in the dissemination of scholarship and evidence to substantiate, influence and shape policy and occupational therapy practice locally and globally. The journal publishes empirical studies, theoretical papers, and reviews. Preference will be given to manuscripts that have a sound theoretical basis, methodological rigour with sufficient scope and scale to make important new contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge. AOTJ does not publish protocols for any study design The journal will consider multidisciplinary or interprofessional studies that include occupational therapy, occupational therapists or occupational therapy students, so long as ‘key points’ highlight the specific implications for occupational therapy, occupational therapists and/or occupational therapy students and/or consumers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信