A randomized controlled trial assessing the health economics of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: an urban versus rural perspective

A randomized controlled trial was carried out to measure the cost-effectiveness of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional outpatient dermatology care for patients from urban and rural areas. One urban and one rural health centre were linked to a regional hospital in Northern Ireland by ISDN at 128 kbit/s. Over two years, 274 patients required a hospital outpatient dermatology referral -126 patients (46%) were randomized to a telemedicine consultation and 148 (54%) to a conventional hospital outpatient consultation. Of those seen by telemedicine, 61% were registered with an urban practice, compared with 71% of those seen conventionally. The clinical outcomes of the two types of consultation were similar - almost half the patients were managed after a single consultation with the dermatologist. The observed marginal cost per patient of the initial realtime teledermatology consultation was f52.85 for those in urban areas and f59.93 per patient for those from rural areas. The observed marginal cost of the initial conventional consultation was f47.13 for urban patients and f48.77 for rural patients. The total observed costs of teledermatology were higher than the costs of conventional care in both urban and rural areas, mainly because of the fixed equipment costs. Sensitivity analysis using a real-world scenario showed that in urban areas the average costs of the telemedicine and conventional consultations were about equal, while in rural areas the average cost of the telemedicine consultation was less than that of the conventional consultation.

Successful defibrillation of a dental patient in cardiac arrest

Cardiac arrest is a very rare event in a dental patient. However, practitioners have a duty of care to their patients if ever such an event occurs. The cardiac arrest discussed in this case report occurred in an elderly person with an implanted pacemaker whilst undergoing restorative dental treatment. Cardiac arrest was diagnosed and cardiopulmonary resuscitation instituted immediately, followed within three minutes by successful defibrillation using the School's semi-automatic defibrillator.

Quality of care of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes

Background: Measurement and improvement of quality of care is a priority issue in health care. Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitute a high-risk population whose care, if shown to be suboptimal on the basis of available research evidence, may benefit from quality improvement interventions. Aim: To evaluate the quality of in-hospital care for patients with ACS, using explicit quality indicators. Methods: Retrospective case note review was undertaken of 397 patients admitted to three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, between 1 October 2000 and 17 April 2001. The main out-come measures were 12 process-of-care quality indicators, calculated as either: (i) the proportion of all patients who received specific interventions or (ii) the proportion of ideal patients who received -specific interventions (i.e. patients with clear indi-cations and lacking contraindications). Results: Quality indicators with values above 80% included: (i) patient selection for thrombolysis (100%) and discharge prescription of beta-blockers (84%), (ii) antiplatelet agents (94%) and (iii) lipid-lowering agents (82%). Indicators with values between 50% and 80% included: (i) timely per-formance of electrocardiogram (ECG) on admission (61%), (ii) early coronary angiography (75%), (iii) measurement of serum lipids (71%) and (iv) discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (73%). Indicators with values <50% included: (i) timely administration of thrombolysis (35%), (ii) non-invasive risk assessment (23%) and (ii) formal in-hospital and post-hospital cardiac rehabilitation (47% and 7%, respectively). Conclusion: There were delays in performing ECG and administering thrombolysis to patients who presented to emergency departments with ACS. Improvement is warranted in use of non-invasive procedures for identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from coronary revascularization as well as use of serum lipid measurements, ACE inhibitors and cardiac rehabilitation.

How well do general practitioners deliver palliative care? A systematic review

General practitioners (GPs) deliver the majority of palliative care to patients in the last year of life. This article seeks to examine the nature of GP care, perceptions of the GPs themselves and others of that care, the adequacy of palliative care training, issues relating to accessibility of GPs to palliative care patients, and strategies that may be of use in encouraging more effective delivery of palliative care by GPs. Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to 2000 were searched, and 135 references identified. Sixty-six of these described studies relevant to GP palliative care. GPs value this part of their work. Most of the time, patients appreciate the contribution the GP makes to palliative care particularly if the GP is accessible, takes time to listen, allows patient and carer to ventilate their feelings, and is seen to be making efforts made regarding symptom relief. However, reports from bereaved relatives suggest that palliative care is performed less well in the community than in other settings. GPs express discomfort about their competence to perform palliative care adequately. They tend to miss symptoms which are not treatable by them, or which are less common. However, with appropriate specialist support and facilities, GPs have been shown to deliver sound and effective care. GP comfort working with specialist teams increases with exposure to this form of patient management, as does the understanding of the potential other team members have in contributing to the care of the patient. Formal arrangements engaging GPs to work with specialist teams have been shown to improve functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, improve effective use of resources and improve effective physician behaviour in other areas of medicine. Efforts by specialist services to develop formal involvement of GPs in the care of individual patients, may be an effective method of improving GP palliative care skills and appreciation of the roles specialist services can play.

Does primary medical practitioner involvement with a specialist team improve patient outcomes? A systematic review.

Patients with chronic or complex medical or psychiatric conditions are treated by many practitioners, including general practitioners (GPs). Formal liaison between primary and specialist is often assumed to offer benefits to patients The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of formal liaison of GPs with specialist service providers on patient health outcomes, by conducting a systematic review of the published literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases using the following search terms family physicians': synonyms of 'patient care planning', 'patient discharge' and 'patient care team'; and synonyms of 'randomised controlled trials'. Seven studies were identified, involving 963 subjects and 899 controls. most health outcomes were unchanged, although some physical and functional health outcomes were improved by formal liaison between GPs and specialist services, particularly among chronic mental illness patients. Some health outcomes worsened during the intervention. Patient retention rates within treatment programmes improved with GP involvement, as did patient satisfaction. Doctor (GP and specialist) behaviour changed, with reports of more rational use of resources and diagnostic tests, improved clinical skills, more frequent use of appropriate treatment strategies, and more frequent clinical behaviours designed to detect disease complications Cost effectiveness could not be determined. In conclusion, formal liaison between GPs and specialist services leaves most physical health outcomes unchanged, but improves functional outcomes in chronically mentally ill patients. It may confer modest long-term health benefits through improvements in patient concordance with treatment programmes and more effective clinical practice.