Savira Feby, Robinson Suzanne, Grant Rebecca, Heinemann Toni, Barry Lisa, Lommerzheim Rachel, Harper Kristie
Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Sir Charles Gairdner Osborne Park Health Care Group, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Aust Occup Ther J. 2025 Aug;72(4):e70036. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.70036.
It is important to understand the cost implications of occupational therapy home visiting services, delivered using different modalities, supporting patients after discharge from the hospital. This study aimed to compare the costs of an occupational therapy home visiting service delivered via telehealth compared to services delivered in person, including the costs associated with any resultant adverse events.
Cost analysis was conducted using data from a retrospective cohort study of adult patients recently discharged from two hospitals who received an occupational therapy home visiting service, including environmental assessment, provision of equipment, and home modifications. Health-care system costs were quantified and compared between telehealth and in-person delivery over the period 2020-2022. Total costs, cost per person, and cost savings, as well as contributors to cost savings, are reported.
This cost analysis study had no consumer or community involvement.
Cost data were reviewed for a total of 537 patients (telehealth, n = 271, including 56 'hybrid' patients; face-to-face, n = 266). In-person group had a greater number of overall encounters compared to the telehealth group, particularly with more frequent use of emergency and inpatient care. Telehealth resulted in a 34% cost reduction compared to in-person care, equivalent to $4 million in savings to the health-care system or a saving of $1186 per telehealth encounter. Telehealth savings were derived from lower number of inpatient and emergency encounters, as well as reduced patient-related travel expenses. For repeat emergency and inpatient encounters, the total cost was $601,909 (82%) less for fall events and $31,772 (33%) less for delirium events, whereas the cost was higher for pressure injury events ($430,161 vs. $29,313 in in-person group).
Telehealth occupational therapy home assessments yielded cost savings over traditional in-person visits, attributed to fewer inpatient and emergency visits and lower travel costs. The cost-saving effect was observed for fall and delirium events, but not for pressure injury events, suggesting it may not be appropriate for all conditions.
Occupational therapists help patients recover at home after hospital stays. They assess home safety and provide education and equipment like rails and shower chairs. Usually, they visit patients' homes, which can be costly and time-consuming. This study explored if telehealth could be a cheaper alternative. Patients received occupational therapy between 2020 and 2022, after leaving hospital. The costs were collected from the hospital for service delivery, any health service use, and we looked at if these patients had any problems after discharge such as falls, pressure injuries, or delirium and the costs of these. Overall, telehealth was 34% cheaper, saving the health system around $4 million, or $1186 per visit. Most of the savings came from fewer hospital visits and less travel. But for pressure injuries, telehealth ended up costing more. This shows that telehealth may not be the best option for every situation. Telehealth can be helpful and cost less to deliver occupational therapy home visiting services; however, we need to make sure this is directed to the right patients.
了解采用不同方式提供的职业治疗家访服务对成本的影响非常重要,这些服务用于在患者出院后为其提供支持。本研究旨在比较通过远程医疗提供的职业治疗家访服务与亲自上门服务的成本,包括与任何由此产生的不良事件相关的成本。
使用一项回顾性队列研究的数据进行成本分析,该研究对象为最近从两家医院出院并接受职业治疗家访服务的成年患者,服务包括环境评估、设备提供和家庭改造。对2020年至2022年期间远程医疗和亲自上门服务的医疗保健系统成本进行了量化和比较。报告了总成本、人均成本和成本节约情况,以及成本节约的贡献因素。
本成本分析研究未涉及消费者或社区参与。
共审查了537名患者的成本数据(远程医疗组,n = 271,包括56名“混合”患者;面对面组,n = 266)。与远程医疗组相比,面对面组的总体诊疗次数更多,尤其是更频繁地使用急诊和住院护理。与亲自上门护理相比,远程医疗使成本降低了34%,相当于为医疗保健系统节省了400万美元,或每次远程医疗诊疗节省1186美元。远程医疗节省的成本来自住院和急诊诊疗次数减少,以及患者相关差旅费降低。对于重复的急诊和住院诊疗,跌倒事件的总成本降低了601,909美元(82%),谵妄事件的总成本降低了31,772美元(33%),而压疮事件的成本更高(面对面组为430,161美元,远程医疗组为29,313美元)。
远程医疗职业治疗家庭评估比传统的亲自上门访视节省成本,这归因于住院和急诊就诊次数减少以及差旅费降低。在跌倒和谵妄事件中观察到了成本节约效果,但在压疮事件中未观察到,这表明它可能并非适用于所有情况。
职业治疗师帮助患者出院后在家中康复。他们评估家庭安全性,并提供诸如扶手和淋浴椅等教育和设备。通常,他们会上门访视患者,这可能成本高昂且耗时。本研究探讨了远程医疗是否可能是一种更便宜的选择。患者在2020年至2022年出院后接受了职业治疗。收集了医院提供服务的成本、任何医疗服务使用情况,并且我们查看了这些患者出院后是否有任何问题,如跌倒、压疮或谵妄以及这些问题的成本。总体而言,远程医疗便宜34%,为医疗系统节省了约400万美元,或每次就诊节省1186美元。大部分节省来自医院就诊次数减少和差旅费降低。但对于压疮,远程医疗最终成本更高。这表明远程医疗可能并非适用于每种情况。远程医疗在提供职业治疗家访服务方面可能有帮助且成本较低;然而,我们需要确保将其用于合适的患者。