Efficacy, patient-doctor relationship, costs and benefits of utilizing telepsychiatry for the management of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): a systematic review

Abstract Introduction Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders found among victims of disaster, kidnapping, accidents, sexual assaults and war in Indonesia. However, lacking and unequal distribution of psychiatric medical personnel remains a barrier to its management. This review aims to introduce and evaluate the potential contribution of telepsychiatry to the management of PTSD based on published literature. Methods Original studies were obtained from PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest, High Wire, and Elsevier Clinical Key databases. Results A total of 125 articles were found, of which 15 articles (12 randomized controlled trials, 2 open trials and 1 pilot study) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 991 subjects were found with a follow-up period ranging between 5 weeks and 18 months. Telepsychiatry is an innovative use of technology to aid the delivery of PTSD treatments in areas difficult to reach. The quality of care given by telepsychiatry both through video conferencing as well as web- and application-based is comparable to that of face-to-face therapy. Patient satisfaction, quality of doctor-patient relationship also remains high, with lower costs and shorter therapeutic time when compared to face-to-face therapy. Conclusion Various studies have shown that telepsychiatry is an effective solution for the management of PTSD. Studies have also reported that the quality of treatment through telepsychiatry is as effective as face-to-face therapy, with greater efficiency. Countries, especially those with a low patient-to-mental health professional ratio, should be encouraged to develop telepsychiatry systems to manage PTSD.

Variação do desempenho hospitalar segundo fontes de pagamento nos estados de São Paulo e Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil / Variation in hospital performance according to payment sources in the states of São Paulo and do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil / Variación del desempeño hospitalario según fuentes de pago en los estados de São Paulo y de Río Grande do Sul, Brasil

Resumo: No Brasil, a convivência público-privado no financiamento e na prestação do cuidado ganha nítidos contornos na assistência hospitalar. Os arranjos de financiamento adotados pelos hospitais (Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS e/ou planos de saúde e/ou pagamento particular) podem afetar a qualidade do cuidado. Alguns estudos buscam associar a razão de mortalidade hospitalar padronizada (RMHP) a melhorias na qualidade. O objetivo foi analisar a RMHP segundo fonte de pagamento da internação e arranjo de financiamento do hospital. Analisaram-se dados secundários e causas responsáveis por 80% dos óbitos hospitalares. A RMHP foi calculada para cada hospital e fonte de pagamento. Hospitais com desempenho pior que o esperado (RMHP > 1) foram majoritariamente públicos de maior porte. A RMHP nas internações SUS foi superior, inclusive entre internações no mesmo hospital. Apesar dos limites, os achados indicam iniquidades no resultado do cuidado. Esforços voltados para a melhoria da qualidade de serviços hospitalares, independentemente das fontes de pagamento, são prementes.

Abstract: In Brazil, the combined presence of public and private interests in financing and provision of healthcare services stands out clearly in hospital care. Financing arrangements adopted by hospitals (the public Brazilian Unified National Health System - SUS and/or health plans and/or out-of-pocket payment) can affect quality of care. Studies have analyzed the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) in relation to quality improvements. The objective was to analyze HSMR according to source of payment for the hospitalization and the hospital's financing arrangement. The study analyzed secondary data and causes that accounted for 80% of hospital deaths. HSMR was calculated for each hospital and payment source. Hospitals with worse-than-expected performance (HSMR > 1) were mostly large public hospitals. HSMR was higher in the SUS, including between admissions in the hospital. Despite the study's limitations, the findings point to inequalities in results of care. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of hospital services, regardless of the payment sources.

Resumen: En Brasil, la convivencia público-privada en la financiación y en la prestación del cuidado empieza a definirse nítidamente en la asistencia hospitalaria. Los acuerdos de financiación adoptados por los hospitales (Sistema Único de Salud - SUS y/o planes de salud y/o pago particular) pueden afectar a la calidad del cuidado. Algunos estudios buscan asociar la razón de mortalidad hospitalaria padronizada (RMHP) a mejorías en la calidad. El objetivo fue analizar la RMHP según la fuente de pago del internamiento y acuerdos de financiación del hospital. Se analizaron datos secundarios y causas responsables de un 80% de los óbitos hospitalarios. La RMHP se calculó para cada hospital y fuente de pago. Los hospitales con un desempeño peor que el esperado (RMHP > 1) fueron mayoritariamente públicos y con un mayor número de pacientes. La RMHP en los internamientos SUS fue superior, incluyendo internamientos en el mismo hospital. A pesar de los límites, los hallazgos indican inequidades en el resultado del cuidado. Son necesarios esfuerzos dirigidos a la mejoría de la calidad de servicios hospitalarios, independientemente de las fuentes de pago de los mismos.

Mortality, Length of Stay, and Inpatient Charges for Heart Failure Patients at Public versus Private Hospitals in South Korea

PURPOSE: This study compared in-hospital mortality within 30 days of admission, lengths of stay, and inpatient charges among patients with heart failure admitted to public and private hospitals in South Korea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained health insurance claims data for all heart failure inpatients nationwide between November 1, 2011 and May 31, 2012. These data were then matched with hospital-level data, and multi-level regression models were examined. A total of 8406 patients from 253 hospitals, including 31 public hospitals, were analyzed. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate within 30 days of admission was 0.92% greater and the mean length of stay was 1.94 days longer at public hospitals than at private hospitals (mortality: 5.18% and 4.26%, respectively; LOS: 12.08 and 10.14 days, respectively). The inpatient charges were 11.4% lower per case and 24.5% lower per day at public hospitals than at private hospitals. After adjusting for patient- and hospital-level confounders, public hospitals had a 1.62-fold higher in-hospital mortality rate, a 16.5% longer length of stay, and an 11.7% higher inpatient charge per case than private hospitals, although the charges of private hospitals were greater in univariate analysis. CONCLUSION: We recommend that government agencies and policy makers continue to monitor quality of care, lengths of stay in the hospital, and expenditures according to type of hospital ownership to improve healthcare outcomes and reduce spending.

Mortality, Length of Stay, and Inpatient Charges for Heart Failure Patients at Public versus Private Hospitals in South Korea

PURPOSE: This study compared in-hospital mortality within 30 days of admission, lengths of stay, and inpatient charges among patients with heart failure admitted to public and private hospitals in South Korea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained health insurance claims data for all heart failure inpatients nationwide between November 1, 2011 and May 31, 2012. These data were then matched with hospital-level data, and multi-level regression models were examined. A total of 8406 patients from 253 hospitals, including 31 public hospitals, were analyzed. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate within 30 days of admission was 0.92% greater and the mean length of stay was 1.94 days longer at public hospitals than at private hospitals (mortality: 5.18% and 4.26%, respectively; LOS: 12.08 and 10.14 days, respectively). The inpatient charges were 11.4% lower per case and 24.5% lower per day at public hospitals than at private hospitals. After adjusting for patient- and hospital-level confounders, public hospitals had a 1.62-fold higher in-hospital mortality rate, a 16.5% longer length of stay, and an 11.7% higher inpatient charge per case than private hospitals, although the charges of private hospitals were greater in univariate analysis. CONCLUSION: We recommend that government agencies and policy makers continue to monitor quality of care, lengths of stay in the hospital, and expenditures according to type of hospital ownership to improve healthcare outcomes and reduce spending.

Healthcare Spending and Performance of Specialty Hospitals: Nationwide Evidence from Colorectal-Anal Specialty Hospitals in South Korea

PURPOSE: Aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics and performance of colorectal-anal specialty vs. general hospitals for South Korean inpatients with colorectal-anal diseases, and assesses the short-term designation effect of the government's specialty hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nationwide all colorectal-anal disease inpatient claims (n=292158) for 2010-2012 were used to investigate length of stay and inpatient charges for surgical and medical procedures in specialty vs. general hospitals. The patients' claim data were matched to hospital data, and multi-level linear mixed models to account for clustering of patients within hospitals were performed. RESULTS: Inpatient charges at colorectal-anal specialty hospitals were 27% greater per case and 92% greater per day than those at small general hospitals, but the average length of stay was 49% shorter. Colorectal-anal specialty hospitals had shorter length of stay and a higher inpatient charges per day for both surgical and medical procedures, but per case charges were not significantly different. A "specialty" designation effect also found that the colorectal-anal specialty hospitals may have consciously attempted to reduce their length of stay and inpatient charges. Both hospital and patient level factors had significant roles in determining length of stay and inpatient charges. CONCLUSION: Colorectal-anal specialty hospitals have shorter length of stay and higher inpatient charges per day than small general hospitals. A "specialty" designation by government influence performance and healthcare spending of hospitals as well. In order to maintain prosperous specialty hospital system, investigation into additional factors that affect performance, such as quality of care and patient satisfaction should be carried out.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure / Análise de custo-efetividade da raquianestesia versus anestesia local associada à sedação para o fechamento de colostomia em alça

CONTEXT: Studies in the area of health economics are still poorly explored and it is known that the cost savings in this area is becoming more necessary, provided that strict criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of spinal anesthesia versus local anesthesia plus sedation for loop colostomy closure. METHODS: This was a randomized clinical trial with 50 patients undergoing loop colostomy closure either under spinal anesthesia (n = 25) or under local anesthesia plus sedation (n = 25). The duration of the operation, time spent in the post-anesthesia recovery room, pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, laboratory and imaging examinations and need for rehospitalization and reoperation were analyzed. The direct medical costs were analyzed. A decision tree model was constructed. The outcome measures were mean cost and cost per local and systemic postoperative complications avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented. RESULTS: Duration of operation: 146 ± 111.5 min. vs 105 ± 23.6 min. (P = 0.012); mean time spent in post-anesthesia recovery room: 145 ± 110.8 min. vs 36.8 ± 34.6 min. (P<0.001). Immediate postoperative pain was lower with local anesthesia plus sedation (P<0.05). Local and systemic complications were fewer with local anesthesia plus sedation (P = 0.209). Hospitalization + rehospitalization: 4.5 ± 4.1 days vs 2.9 ± 2.2 days (P<0.0001); mean spending per patient: R$ 5,038.05 vs 2,665.57 (P<0.001). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: R$ -474.78, indicating that the strategy with local anesthesia plus sedation is cost saving. CONCLUSION: In the present investigation, loop colostomy closure under local anesthesia plus sedation was effective and appeared to be a dominant strategy, compared with the same surgical procedure under spinal anesthesia.

OBJETIVO: Análise de custo-efetividade entre fechamento de colostomia e m alça sob raquianestesia versus anestesia local associada à sedação. MÉTODOS: Ensaio clínico randomizado com 50 pacientes para fechamento de colostomia em alça, sob raquianestesia (n = 25) e sob anestesia local com sedação (n = 25). Avaliaram-se tempo operatório e de sala de recuperação pós-anestésica, dor, complicações pós-operatórias, tempo de internação, exames laboratoriais e de imagens, reoperações e reinternações. Foi feita análise de custos diretos médicos. A medida de desfecho foi: complicações pós-operatórias locais e sistêmicas. Aplicaram-se razão incremental e árvore de decisão. RESULTADOS: Tempo operatório (146 ± 111,5 min vs 105 ± 23,6 min; P = 0,012), tempo médio de sala de recuperação pós-anestésica (145 ± 110,8 min vs 36,8 ± 34,6 min, P<0,001). Dor no pós-operatório imediato em favor da anestesia local (P<0,05). Complicações pós-operatórias locais e sistêmicas (P = 0,209) em favor da anestesia local. Internação + reinternações (4,5 ± 4,1 dias vs 2,9 ± 2,2 dias; P<0,0001), valor médio gasto por paciente (R$ 5.038,05 vs R$ 2.665,57; P<0,001). Razão de custo-efetividade: -R$ 474,78, indicando que a estratégia é dominante. CONCLUSÃO: Na presente investigação o fechamento de colostomia em alça sob anestesia local associada à sedação foi eficaz e apresentou boa relação de custo-efetividade em relação ao mesmo procedimento cirúrgico sob raquianestesia.

Measurement of clinical effects.

The measurement and valuation of clinical effects is a significant component of economic evaluation. Decision makers are commonly interested in how a particular health intervention works in everyday practice; therefore, the resulting outcome under this circumstance is called the effectiveness. Clinical effects usually measure final intended effects of a proposed health technology in terms of the ultimate change in health state brought about by the technology. The systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality RCTs is the most favorable method to synthesize evidence because they are disciplined and transparent methods. The present chapter focuses on how to make a valid measure of clinical effects for use in cost-effectiveness analysis and how clinical effect is to be appropriately defined and measured.