Sonila M Tomini, Efthalia Massou, Nadia E Crellin, Naomi J Fulop, Theo Georghiou, Lauren Herlitz, Ian Litchfield, Pei Li Ng, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Manbinder S Sidhu, Holly Walton, Stephen Morris
{"title":"英格兰 COVID-19 远程家庭监控服务成本评估。","authors":"Sonila M Tomini, Efthalia Massou, Nadia E Crellin, Naomi J Fulop, Theo Georghiou, Lauren Herlitz, Ian Litchfield, Pei Li Ng, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Manbinder S Sidhu, Holly Walton, Stephen Morris","doi":"10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Cost Evaluation of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services in England.\",\"authors\":\"Sonila M Tomini, Efthalia Massou, Nadia E Crellin, Naomi J Fulop, Theo Georghiou, Lauren Herlitz, Ian Litchfield, Pei Li Ng, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Manbinder S Sidhu, Holly Walton, Stephen Morris\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362405/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在 COVID-19 大流行期间,远程家庭监测服务成为英格兰国家医疗服务体系提供医疗服务的重要组成部分,旨在提供及时的干预措施并减轻医疗系统的负担。该服务分为两类:由社区医疗服务机构转介到家庭护理,以确保正确的人在正确的时间入院(称为 COVID 血氧监测@home,CO@h);由医院转介,以支持病人从医院到家庭的过渡(称为 COVID-19 虚拟病房,CVW)。收集的血氧水平和其他症状信息通过数字方式(支持技术)或电话方式(仅模拟提交模式)提供。这项研究旨在评估大流行第二波期间在英格兰 26 个地点对 COVID-19 患者实施远程家庭监控的成本。从 NHS 的角度了解这些服务的运营和财务影响对于有效的资源分配和服务规划至关重要:方法:我们在干预层面采用了自下而上的成本计算方法来描述建立和运行这些服务的成本。26 个实施地点报告了参与服务的患者和员工人数以及使用的其他资源。使用描述性统计和多变量回归分析来评估成本差异,并量化用户数量与成本之间的关系,同时对其他服务特征进行调整:结果:与CVW服务相比,CO@h服务监测的每位患者的平均成本较低(527英镑对599英镑)。在CO@h服务(515英镑 vs 561英镑)和CVW服务(584英镑 vs 612英镑)中,使用技术支持和模拟数据提交模式的实施地点与仅使用模拟模式的实施地点相比,每名患者的平均成本更低。参与服务的患者人数和服务类型对每位患者的平均成本有显著影响:我们的分析为评估未来类似服务的成本提供了一个框架,并表明这些服务的实施得益于技术支持的数据提交模式。
A Cost Evaluation of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services in England.
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: 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: 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: 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.
期刊介绍:
PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.