The family costs of attending hospital outpatient appointments via videoconference and in person

We compared the costs incurred by families attending outpatient appointments at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) in Brisbane with those incurred by families who had a consultation via videoconference in their regional area. In each category 200 families were interviewed. The median time spent travelling for videoconferences was 30 min compared with 80 min for face-to-face appointments. Families interviewed in the outpatient department had travelled a median distance of 70 km, while those who had a videoconference at the local hospital had travelled only 20 km. It cost these families much more to attend an appointment at the RCH than to attend a videoconference. Ninety-six per cent of families (193) reported at least one of the following types of expense: 150 families had expenses related to parking (median A$10), 156 had fuel expenses (median A$10) and 122 reported costs related to meals purchased at the RCH (median A$10). Only 21 families who had their appointment via local videoconference reported any additional costs. Specialist appointments via videoconference were a more convenient and cheaper option for families living in regional areas of Queensland than the conventional method of attending outpatient appointments at the specialist hospital in Brisbane.

Two knees or not two knees? Patient costs and outcomes following bilateral and unilateral total knee joint replacement surgery for OA

Aims: This study aims to address medical and non-medical direct costs and health outcomes of bilateral and unilateral total knee replacement from the patients' perspective during the first year post-surgery. Methods: Osteoarthritis patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee or bilateral total knee replacement (TKR) surgery at three Sydney hospitals were eligible. Patients completed questionnaires pre-operatively to record expenses during the previous three months and health status immediately prior to surgery. Patients then maintained detailed prospective cost diaries and completed SF-36 and WOMAC Index each three months for the first post-operative year. Results: Pre-operatively, no significant differences in health status were found between patients undergoing unilateral TKR and bilateral TKR. Both unilateral and bilateral TKR patients showed improvements in pain, stiffness and function from pre-surgery to 12 months post-surgery. Patients who had bilateral TKR spent an average of 12.3 days in acute hospital and patients who had unilateral TKR 13.6 days. Totally uncemented prostheses were used in 6% of unilateral replacements and 48% of bilateral replacements. In hospital, patients who had bilateral TKR experienced significantly more complications, mainly thromboembolic, than patients who had unilateral TKR. Regression analysis showed that for every one point increase in the pre-operative SF-36 physical score (i.e. improving physical status) out-of-pocket costs decreased by 94%. Out-of-pocket costs for female patients were 3.3 times greater than for males. Conclusion: Patients undergoing bilateral TKR and unilateral TKR had a similar length of stay in hospital and similar out-of-pocket expenditures. Bilateral replacement patients reported better physical function and general health with fewer health care visits one year post procedure. Patients requiring bilateral TKR have some additional information to aid their decision making. While their risk of peri-operative complications is higher, they have an excellent chance of good health outcomes at 12 months and are not going to be doubly 'out-of-pocket' for the experience. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.