A cost-minimization analysis of the societal costs of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: results from a randomized controlled trial in New Zealand

A randomized controlled trial was carried out to measure the societal costs of realtime teledermatology compared with those of conventional hospital care in New Zealand. Two rural health centres were linked to a specialist hospital via ISDN at 128 kbit/s. Over 10 months, 203 patients were referred for a specialist dermatological consultation and 26 were followed up, giving a total of 229 consultations. Fifty-four per cent were randomized to the teledermatology consultation and 46% to the conventional hospital consultation. A cost-minimization analysis was used to calculate the total costs of both types of dermatological consultation. The total cost of the 123 teledermatology consultations was NZ$34,346 and the total cost of the 106 conventional hospital consultations was NZ$30,081. The average societal cost of the teledermatology consultation was therefore NZ$279.23 compared with NZ$283.79 for the conventional hospital consultation. The marginal cost of seeing an additional patient was NZ$135 via teledermatology and NZ$284 via conventional hospital appointment. From a societal viewpoint, and assuming an equal outcome, teledermatology was a more cost-efficient use of resources than conventional hospital care.

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.

Surgical outcomes of a randomized prospective trial involving patients with a proximal femoral fracture

Background: An orthopaedic management/patient-focused care unit (OMPFCU) involving a dedicated orthopaedic-geriatrics liaison team was established at the Royal Brisbane Hospital in 1994 in an effort to safely accelerate rehabilitation of patients with proximal femoral fractures. Methods: The surgical outcomes of the patients were monitored in order to determine whether accelerated rehabilitation had any significant adverse effects on the surgical outcomes, measured by mortality, readmission to hospital, deep wound infection, fracture union delay, mobility and the revision surgery rate. Results: No significant difference was recorded in mortality and morbidity, deep wound infection and revision surgery rates between patients in the Royal Brisbane Hospital OMPFCU and those in standard care in the orthopaedic surgery wards. Conclusion: Accelerated rehabilitation for patients with a proximal femoral fracture in a major teaching hospital can be accomplished safely.

Paracetamol versus paracetamol-codeine in the treatment of post-operative dental pain: A randomized, double-blind, prospective trial

Background: Codeine is frequently added to paracetamol to treat post-operative dento-alveolar pain; studies have shown effectiveness in relief of post-operative pain at high doses but at the expense of central nervous and gastrointestinal side effects. There has been no trial to compare the efficacy and safety of paracetamol 1000mg with paracetamol 1000mg combined with codeine 30mg. Method. A randomized, single centre, double-blind prospective parallel group trial was performed to compare paracetamol 1000mg with paracetamol 1000mg with codeine 30mg for the relief of pain following surgical removal of impacted third molars, and analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Eighty-two patients were assigned randomly to receive either drug for a maximum of three doses. Patients recorded their pain intensity one hour after surgery and hourly thereafter for 12 hours. Results: The average increase in pain intensity over 12 hours was significantly less in patients receiving paracetamol plus codeine than in those receiving paracetamol alone (p=0.03) -1.81cm/h compared with 0.45cm/h - a difference of 1.13cm/h (95 per cent Cl: 0.18 to 2.08). Of the patients who received the paracetamol codeine combination, 62 per cent used escape medication compared with 75 per cent of those on paracetamol alone (p=0.20). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events (P=0.5). Conclusion: A combination of 1000mg paracetamol and 30mg codeine was significantly more effective in controlling pain for 12 hours following third molar removal, with no significant difference of side effects during the 12 hour period studied.

A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 1 of 2): clinical results

Objective: First, to assess the clinical effectiveness of hylan G-F 20 in an appropriate care treatment regimen (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1995 guidelines) as measured by validated disease-specific outcomes and health-related quality of life endpoints for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Second, to utilize the measures of effectiveness and costs in an economic evaluation (see accompanying manuscript). Design: A total of 255 patients with OA of the knee were enrolled by rheumatologists or orthopedic surgeons into a prospective, randomized, open-label, 1-year, multi-centred trial, conducted in Canada. Patients were randomized to 'Appropriate care with hylan G-F 20' (AC+H) or 'Appropriate care without hylan G-F 20' (AC). Data were collected at clinic visits (baseline, 12 months) and by telephone (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 months). Results: The AC+H group was superior to the AC group for all primary (% reduction in mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale: 38% vs 13%, P=0.0001) and secondary effectiveness outcome measures. These differences were all statistically significant and exceeded the 20% difference between groups seta priori by the investigators as the minimum clinically important difference. Health-related quality of life improvements in the AC+H group were statistically superior for the WOMAC pain, stiffness and physical function (all P

Telemedicine for new neurological outpatients: putting a randomized controlled trial in the context of everyday practice

In a retrospective review, the telemedical management of 65 outpatients from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of telemedicine for non-urgent referrals to a consultant neurologist was compared with the management of 76 patients seen face to face in the same trial, with that of 150 outpatients seen in the neurology clinics of district general hospitals and with that of 102 neurological outpatients seen by general physicians. Outcome measures were the numbers of investigations and of patient reviews. The telemedicine group did not differ significantly from the 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics in terms of either the number of investigations or the number of reviews they received. Patients from the RCT seen face to face had significantly fewer investigations but a similar number of reviews to the other 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists (the disparity in the number of investigations may explain the negative result for telemedicine in that RCT). Patients with neurological symptoms assessed by general physicians had significantly more investigations and were reviewed significantly more often than all the other groups. Patients from the RCT seen by telemedicine were not managed significantly differently from those seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics but had significantly fewer investigations and follow-ups than those patients managed by general physicians. The results suggest that management of new neurological outpatients by neurologists using telemedicine is similar to that by neurologists using a face-to-face consultation, and is more efficient than management by general physicians.