Dataset Information

Cross-sectional study of the ambulance transport between healthcare facilities with medical support via telemedicine: Easy, effective, and safe tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Feasibility and safety of ambulance transport between healthcare facilities with medical support exclusively via telemedicine are unknown.

Methods

This was a retrospective study with a single telemedicine center reference for satellite emergency departments of the same hospital. The study population was all critically ill patients admitted to one of the peripheral units from November 2016 to May 2020 and who needed to be transferred to the main building. Telemedicine-assisted transportation was performed by an emergency specialist. The inclusion criteria included patients above the age of 15 and initial stabilization performed at the emergency department. Unstable, intubated, ST-elevation myocardial infarction and acute stroke patients were excluded. There was a double-check of safety conditions by the nurse and the remote doctor before the ambulance departure. The primary endpoint was the number of telemedicine-guided interventions during transport.

Results

2840 patients were enrolled. The population was predominantly male (53.2%) with a median age of 60 years. Sepsis was the most prevalent diagnosis in 28% of patients, followed by acute coronary syndromes (8.5%), arrhythmia (6.7%), venous thromboembolism (6.1%), stroke (6.1%), acute abdomen (3.6%), respiratory distress (3.3%), and heart failure (2.5%). Only 22 (0.8%) patients required telemedicine-assisted support during transport. Administration of oxygen therapy and analgesics were the most common recommendations made by telemedicine emergency physicians. There were no communication problems in the telemedicine-assisted group.

Conclusions

Telemedicine-assisted ambulance transportation between healthcare facilities of stabilized critically ill patients may be an option instead of an onboard physician. The frequency of clinical support requests by telemedicine is minimal, and most evaluations are of low complexity and easily and safely performed by trained nurses.

SUBMITTER: Pedrotti CHS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8483335 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine is currently mainly applied as an in-hospital service, but this technology also holds potential to improve emergency care in the prehospital arena. We report on the safety, feasibility and reliability of in-ambulance teleconsultation using a telemedicine system of the third generation.MethodsA routine ambulance was equipped with a system for real-time bidirectional audio-video communication, automated transmission of vital parameters, glycemia and electronic patient identification. All patients ( ≥ 18 years) transported during emergency missions by a Prehospital Intervention Team of the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel were eligible for inclusion. To guarantee mobility and to facilitate 24/7 availability, the teleconsultants used lightweight laptop computers to access a dedicated telemedicine platform, which also provided functionalities for neurological assessment, electronic reporting and prehospital notification of the in-hospital team. Key registrations included any safety issue, mobile connectivity, communication of patient information, audiovisual quality, user-friendliness and accuracy of the prehospital diagnosis.ResultsPrehospital teleconsultation was obtained in 41 out of 43 cases (95.3%). The success rates for communication of blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, glycemia, and electronic patient identification were 78.7%, 84.8%, 80.6%, 64.0%, and 84.2%. A preliminary prehospital diagnosis was formulated in 90.2%, with satisfactory agreement with final in-hospital diagnoses. Communication of a prehospital report to the in-hospital team was successful in 94.7% and prenotification of the in-hospital team via SMS in 90.2%. Failures resulted mainly from limited mobile connectivity and to a lesser extent from software, hardware or human error. The user acceptance was high.ConclusionsAmbulance-based telemedicine of the third generation is safe, feasible and reliable but further research and development, especially with regard to high speed broadband access, is needed before this approach can be implemented in daily practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Stroke is a very time-sensitive pathology, and many new solutions target the optimization of prehospital stroke care to improve the stroke management process. In-ambulance telemedicine, defined by live bidirectional audio-video between a patient and a neurologist in a moving ambulance and the automated transfer of vital parameters, is a promising new approach to speed up and improve the quality of acute stroke care. Currently, no evidence exists on the cost effectiveness of in-ambulance telemedicine. OBJECTIVE:We aim to develop a first cost effectiveness model for in-ambulance telemedicine and use this model to estimate the time savings needed before in-ambulance telemedicine becomes cost effective. METHODS:Current standard stroke care is compared with current standard stroke care supplemented with in-ambulance telemedicine using a cost-utility model measuring costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a health care perspective. We combine a decision tree with a Markov model. Data from the UZ Brussel Stroke Registry (2282 stroke patients) and linked hospital claims data at individual level are combined with literature data to populate the model. A 2-way sensitivity analysis varying both implementation costs and time gain is performed to map the different cost-effective combinations and identify the time gain needed for cost effectiveness and dominance. For several modeled time gains, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve is calculated and mapped in 1 figure. RESULTS:Under the base-case scenario (implementation cost of US $159,425) and taking a lifetime horizon into account, in-ambulance telemedicine is a cost-effective strategy compared to standard stroke care alone starting from a time gain of 6 minutes. After 12 minutes, in-ambulance telemedicine becomes dominant, and this results in a mean decrease of costs by US -$30 (95% CI -$32 to -$29) per patient with 0.00456 (95% CI 0.00448 to 0.00463) QALYs on average gained per patient. In over 82% of all probabilistic simulations, in-ambulance telemedicine remains under the cost-effectiveness threshold of US $47,747. CONCLUSIONS:Our model suggests that in-ambulance telemedicine can be cost effective starting from a time gain of 6 minutes and becomes a dominant strategy after approximately 15 minutes. This indicates that in-ambulance telemedicine has the potential to become a cost-effective intervention assuming time gains in clinical implementations are realized in the future.

Project description:ImportanceTelemedicine in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has the potential to improve access and timeliness of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 to 2022, telemedicine coverage expanded, but little is known about patterns of use in SNFs.ObjectiveTo describe patterns of telemedicine use in SNFs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used 2018 to 2022 Medicare fee-for-service claims and Minimum Data Set 3.0 records to identify short- and long-term care SNF residents. Clinician visits were grouped into routine SNF visits (ie, regular primary care within SNF) and other outpatient visits (ie, with non-SNF affiliated primary and specialty care clinicians). Using a difference-in-differences approach, assessments included whether off-hours visits (measured as weekend visits), new specialist visits, psychiatrist visits, or visits for residents with limited mobility changed differentially between 2018 to 2019 and 2020 to 2021 for SNFs with high compared with low telemedicine use in 2020.ExposureTelemedicine adoption at SNF after 2020.Main outcomes and measuresNumber and proportion of telemedicine SNF and outpatient visits.ResultsAcross 15 434 SNFs and 4 463 591 residents from the period January 2019 through June 2022 (mean [SD] age, 79.7 [11.6] years; 61% female in 2020), telemedicine visits increased from 0.15% in January 2019 to February 2020 to 15% SNF visits and 25% outpatient visits in May 2020. By 2022, telemedicine dropped to 2% of SNF visits and 8% of outpatient visits. The proportion of SNFs with any telemedicine visits annually dropped from 91% in 2020 to 61% in 2022. The facilities with high telemedicine use were more likely to be rural (adjusted odds ratio vs urban, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.77 to 2.40). Psychiatry visits differentially increased in high vs low telemedicine-use SNFs (20.2% relative increase; 95% CI, 1.2% to 39.2%). In contrast, there was little change in outpatient visits for residents with limited mobility (7.2%; 95% CI, -0.1% to 14.6%) or new specialist visits (-0.7%; 95% CI, -2.5% to 1.2%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of SNF residents, telemedicine was rapidly adopted in early 2020 but subsequently stabilized at a low use rate that was nonetheless higher than before 2020. Higher telemedicine use in SNFs was associated with improved access to psychiatry visits in SNFs. A policy to encourage continued telemedicine use may facilitate further access to important services as the technology matures.

Project description:ImportanceSome Medicare-reimbursed services are overused or improperly used, resulting in payments for unnecessary services.ObjectiveTo determine if prior authorization of services vulnerable to improper use is associated with reduced use and costs without changing patient access or health outcomes.Design setting and participantsThis study involved repeated cross-sectional evaluation with a state-level matched control group construction and inverse propensity score weighting at the Medicare beneficiary level. Eight states plus the District of Columbia requiring prior authorization were compared with 13 matched comparison group states not subject to prior authorization. Observations on approximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries spanned January 2012 through December 2019. Depending on their state of residence, this included 3 or 4 preintervention years and 4 or 5 postintervention years. Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to July 2021.InterventionAmbulance suppliers were directed to request prior authorization for Repetitive, Scheduled, Non-Emergent Ambulance Transport (RSNAT) services; failure to do so resulted in prepayment claim review. The goal of prior authorization is to reduce use of nonemergency ambulance transports that do not meet Medicare coverage criteria.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included total cost of care, RSNAT use rates and expenditures, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department admission, and emergency ambulance use per beneficiary-year. All measures were constructed from Medicare claims.ResultsApproximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries were observed in the study (mean [SD] age, 71 [15] years; 50% female beneficiaries; 30% Black beneficiaries, 64% White beneficiaries; 20% rural residence; 35% dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; 58% with end-stage renal disease; and 44% with severe [stage 3 or 4] pressure ulcers). After controlling for covariates, the results showed that prior authorization was associated with a 2.4% reduction in total annual expenditures for a total of $1530 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1775 to -$1285; P < .001); a 61% reduction in the probability of RSNAT use for a total of 4.1 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -4.26 to -3.94; P < .001); a 77% reduction in RSNAT expenditures for a total of $1136 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1179 to -$1093; P < .001); a 1.4% reduction in the probability of emergency department use by 0.99 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.17 to -0.81; P < .001); no change in the probability of emergency ambulance use (0.07 percentage points, 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.29; P = .50); a 2.6% reduction in the probability of unplanned hospital admission for a total of 1.53 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.71 to -1.35; P < .001); and a 19% annual increase in the probability of emergency dialysis use for a total of 1.4 percentage points per beneficiary with end-stage renal disease (95% CI, 1.28 to 1.60; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this difference-in-differences analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, the results suggest that the RSNAT Prior Authorization Model was associated with reduced costs with little or no change in the quality or access indicators examined. Targeted approaches to prior authorization may be an appropriate control measure for Medicare services vulnerable to improper use.