Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021
A Telemonitoring Intervention for Cirrhotic Ascites Management Is Cost-Saving.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bloom Patricia P, Ventoso Martin, Tapper Elliot, Ha Jasmine, Richter James M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with cirrhosis and ascites experience frequent hospital admissions, leading to poor quality of life and high healthcare costs. Monitoring weight is a component of ascites care and telemonitoring may improve outcomes and costs. Goals We aimed to evaluate the cost and outcomes of current care compared to a telemonitoring system for ascites. Study We developed a decision-analytic model that examined 100 simulated patients over a 6-month horizon. We compared usual care to a new telemonitoring program, which we estimate costs $50,000/6 months.
RESULTS: The cost of standard of care for 100 patients with cirrhotic ascites over a 6-month period is $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. By varying parameter probabilities by ± 10% and outcome costs by ± 20%, we found that standard of care remains more expensive than care with a telemonitoring intervention by $9400 to $340,200 per 6-month period. Standard of care leads to 9 more admissions (range 4 to 12) than a telemonitoring intervention, while telemonitoring leads to 9 more outpatient visits (range 6 to 9) and 28 additional outpatient large volume paracenteses (LVPs) (range 17 to 28). With more and less expensive telemonitoring interventions, standard of care remained more expensive. With 50% adherence to the intervention, standard of care was $89,848 more expensive.
CONCLUSIONS: In almost all probability and cost scenarios, a telemonitoring intervention is cost-saving for the management of cirrhotic ascites. Using hospital admissions as a surrogate for quality of care, patient outcomes are improved primarily though more proactive medical intervention and more LVPs.
RESULTS: The cost of standard of care for 100 patients with cirrhotic ascites over a 6-month period is $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. By varying parameter probabilities by ± 10% and outcome costs by ± 20%, we found that standard of care remains more expensive than care with a telemonitoring intervention by $9400 to $340,200 per 6-month period. Standard of care leads to 9 more admissions (range 4 to 12) than a telemonitoring intervention, while telemonitoring leads to 9 more outpatient visits (range 6 to 9) and 28 additional outpatient large volume paracenteses (LVPs) (range 17 to 28). With more and less expensive telemonitoring interventions, standard of care remained more expensive. With 50% adherence to the intervention, standard of care was $89,848 more expensive.
CONCLUSIONS: In almost all probability and cost scenarios, a telemonitoring intervention is cost-saving for the management of cirrhotic ascites. Using hospital admissions as a surrogate for quality of care, patient outcomes are improved primarily though more proactive medical intervention and more LVPs.