Finkelstein Stanley M, Speedie Stuart M, Potthoff Sandra
Division of Health Informatics, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Telemed J E Health. 2006 Apr;12(2):128-36. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2006.12.128.
Patient outcomes and cost were compared when home healthcare was delivered by telemedicine or by traditional means for patients receiving skilled nursing care at home. A randomized controlled trial was established using three groups. The first group, control group C, received traditional skilled nursing care at home. The second group, video intervention group V, received traditional skilled nursing care at home and virtual visits using videoconferencing technology. The third group, monitoring intervention group M, received traditional skilled nursing care at home, virtual visits using videoconferencing technology, and physiologic monitoring for their underlying chronic condition. Discharge to a higher level of care (hospital, nursing home) within 6 months of study participation was 42% for C subjects, 21% for V subjects, and 15% for M subjects. There was no difference in mortality between the groups. Morbidity, as evaluated by changes in the knowledge, behavior and status scales of the Omaha Assessment Tool, showed no differences between groups except for increased scores for activities of daily living at study discharge in the V and M groups. The average visit costs were $48.27 for face-to-face home visits, $22.11 for average virtual visits (video group), and $32.06 and $38.62 for average monitoring group visits for congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease subjects, respectively. This study has demonstrated that virtual visits between a skilled home healthcare nurse and chronically ill patients at home can improve patient outcome at lower cost than traditional skilled face-to-face home healthcare visits.
对于在家接受专业护理的患者,比较通过远程医疗或传统方式提供家庭医疗护理时的患者预后和成本。采用三组建立了一项随机对照试验。第一组为对照组C,在家接受传统的专业护理。第二组为视频干预组V,在家接受传统的专业护理并使用视频会议技术进行虚拟问诊。第三组为监测干预组M,在家接受传统的专业护理、使用视频会议技术进行虚拟问诊,并对其基础慢性病进行生理监测。参与研究6个月内转至更高护理水平(医院、疗养院)的比例,C组患者为42%,V组患者为21%,M组患者为15%。各组之间的死亡率无差异。根据奥马哈评估工具的知识、行为和状态量表变化评估的发病率,除V组和M组在研究出院时日常生活活动得分增加外,各组之间无差异。面对面家庭访视的平均费用为48.27美元,虚拟访视(视频组)的平均费用为22.11美元,充血性心力衰竭和慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者监测组访视的平均费用分别为32.06美元和38.62美元。这项研究表明,专业家庭医疗护理护士与在家慢性病患者之间的虚拟问诊,与传统的专业面对面家庭医疗护理访视相比,能够以更低的成本改善患者预后。