Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that virtual outreach would reduce offers of hospital follow-up appointments and reduce numbers of medical interventions and investigations, reduce numbers of contacts with the health care system, have a positive impact on patient satisfaction and enablement, and lead to improvements in patient health status. To perform an economic evaluation of virtual outreach. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial comparing joint teleconsultations between GPs, specialists and patients with standard outpatient referral. It was accompanied by an economic evaluation. SETTING: The trial was centred on the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, London, and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trust in Shropshire. The project teams recruited and trained a total of 134 GPs from 29 practices and 20 consultant specialists. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 3170 patients were referred, of whom 2094 consented to participate in the study and were eligible for inclusion. In all, 1051 patients were randomised to the virtual outreach group and 1043 to standard outpatient appointments. The patients were followed 6 months after their index consultation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomised to virtual outreach underwent a joint teleconsultation, in which they attended the general practice surgery where they and their GP consulted with a hospital specialist via a videolink between the hospital and the practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included offers of follow-up outpatient appointments, numbers of tests, investigations, procedures, treatments and contacts with primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction (Ware Specific Visit Questionnaire), enablement (Patient Enablement Instrument) and quality of life (Short Form-12 and Child Health Questionnaire). An economic evaluation of the costs and consequences of the intervention was undertaken. Sensitivity analysis was used to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Patients in the virtual outreach group were more likely to be offered a follow-up appointment. Significant differences in effects were observed between the two sites and across different specialities. Virtual outreach increased the offers of follow-up appointments more in Shrewsbury than in London, and more in ENT and orthopaedics than in the other specialities. Fewer tests and investigations were ordered in the virtual outreach group, by an average of 0.79 per patient. In the 6-month period following the index consultation, there were no significant differences overall in number of contacts with general practice, outpatient visits, accident and emergency contacts, inpatient stays, day surgery and inpatient procedures or prescriptions between the randomised groups. Tests of interaction indicated that virtual outreach decreased the number of tests and investigations, particularly in patients referred to gastroenterology, and increased the number of outpatient visits, particularly in those referred to orthopaedics. Patient satisfaction was greater after a virtual outreach consultation than after a standard outpatient consultation, with no heterogeneity between specialities or sites. However, patient enablement after the index consultation, and the physical and psychological scores of the Short Form-12 for adults and the scores on the Child Health Questionnaire for children under 16, did not differ between the randomised groups at 6 months' follow-up. NHS costs over 6 months were greater for the virtual outreach consultations than for conventional outpatients, pound 724 and pound 625 per patient, respectively. The index consultation accounted for this excess. Cost and time savings to patients were found. Estimated productivity losses were also less in the virtual outreach group. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual outreach consultations result in significantly higher levels of patient satisfaction than standard outpatient appointments and lead to substantial reductions in numbers of tests and investigations, but they are variably associated with increased rates of offer of follow-up according to speciality and site. Changes in costs and technological advances may improve the relative position of virtual consultations in future. The extent to which virtual outreach is implemented will probably be dependent on factors such as patient demand, costs, and the attitudes of staff working in general practice and hospital settings. Further research could involve long-term follow-up of patients in the virtual outreach trial to determine downstream outcomes and costs; further study into the effectiveness and costs of virtual outreach used for follow-up appointments, rather than first-time referrals; and whether the costs of virtual outreach could be substantially reduced without adversely affecting the quality of the consultation if nurses or other members of the primary care team were to undertake the hosting of the joint teleconsultations in place of the GP. Qualitative work into the attitudes of the patients, GPs and hospital specialists would also be valuable.

Nursing record systems: effects on nursing practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A nursing record system is the record of care planned and/or given to individual patients/clients by qualified nurses or other caregivers under the direction of a qualified nurse. Nursing record systems may be an effective way of influencing nurse practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of nursing record systems on nursing practice and patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, the EPOC trial register (October 2002), MEDLINE, Cinahl, Sigle, and databases of the Royal College of Nursing, King's Fund, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Institute of Electrical Engineers up to August 1999; and OCLC First Search, Department of Health database, NHS Register of Computer Applications and the Health Visitors' Association database up to the end of 1995. We hand searched the Journal of Nursing Administration (1971-1999), Computers in Nursing (1984-1999), Information Technology in Nursing (1989-1999) and reference lists of articles. We also hand searched the major health informatics conference proceedings. We contacted experts in the field of nursing informatics, suppliers of nursing computer systems, and relevant Internet groups. To update the review the Medline, Cinahl, British Nursing Index, Aslib Index to Theses databases were all searched from 1998 to 2002. The Journal of Nursing Administration, Computers in Nursing, Information Technology in Nursing were all hand searched up to 2002. The searches of the other databases and grey literature included in the original review, were not updated (except for Health Care Computing Conference and Med Info) as the original searches produced little relevant material. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series comparing one kind of nursing record system with another, in hospital, community or primary care settings. The participants were qualified nurses, students or health care assistants working under the direction of a qualified nurse and patients receiving care recorded and/or planned using nursing record systems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving 1497 people were included. In three studies of client held records, there were no overall positive or negative effects, although some administrative benefits through fewer missing notes were suggested. A paediatric pain management sheet study showed a positive effect on the children's pain intensity. A computerised nursing care planning study showed a negative effect on documented nursing care planning, although two other computerised nursing information studies showed an increase in recording but no change in patient outcomes. Care planning took longer with these computerised systems, but the numbers of patients and nurses included in these studies was small. A controlled before-and-after study of two paper nursing record systems showed improvement in meeting documentation standards. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of effects on practice attributable to changes in record systems. Although there is a paucity of studies of sufficient methodological rigour to yield reliable results in this area, it is clear from the literature that it is possible to set up randomised trials or other quasi-experimental designs needed to produce evidence for practice. The research undertaken so far may have suffered both from methodological problems and faulty hypotheses. Qualitative nursing research to explore the relationship between practice and information use, could be used as a precursor to the design and testing of nursing information systems.

Virtual outreach: economic evaluation of joint teleconsultations for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that, compared with conventional outpatient consultations, joint teleconsultation (virtual outreach) would incur no increased costs to the NHS, reduce costs to patients, and reduce absences from work by patients and their carers. DESIGN: Cost consequences study alongside randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two hospitals in London and Shrewsbury and 29 general practices in inner London and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 3170 patients identified; 2094 eligible for inclusion and willing to participate. 1051 randomised to virtual outreach and 1043 to standard outpatient appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NHS costs, patient costs, health status (SF-12), time spent attending index consultation, patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall six months costs were greater for the virtual outreach consultations ( pound 724 per patient) than for conventional outpatient appointments ( pound 625): difference in means pound 99 ($162; 138) (95% confidence interval pound 10 to pound 187, P=0.03). If the analysis is restricted to resource items deemed "attributable" to the index consultation, six month costs were still greater for virtual outreach: difference in means pound 108 ( pound 73 to pound 142, P < 0.0001). In both analyses the index consultation accounted for the excess cost. Savings to patients in terms of costs and time occurred in both centres: difference in mean total patient cost pound 8 ( pound 5 to pound 10, P < 0.0001). Loss of productive time was less in the virtual outreach group: difference in mean cost pound 11 ( pound 10 to pound 12, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The main hypothesis that virtual outreach would be cost neutral is rejected, but the hypotheses that costs to patients and losses in productivity would be lower are supported.

Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is the use of telecommunications technology for medical diagnosis and patient care. From its beginnings telemedicine has been used in a variety of health care fields, although widespread interest among healthcare providers has only now become apparent with the development of more sophisticated technology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of telemedicine as an alternative to face-to-face patient care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's specialised register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966-August 1999), EMBASE (to 1996), Cinahl (to August 1999), Inspec (to August 1996), Healthstar (1983-1996), OCLC, Sigle (to 1999), Assia, SCI (1981-1997), SSCI (1981-1997), DHSS-Data. We hand searched the Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (1995-1999), Telemedicine Journal (1995-1999) and reference lists of articles. We also hand searched conference proceedings and contacted experts in countries identified as having an interest in telemedicine. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series comparing telemedicine with face-to-face patient care. The participants were qualified health professionals and patients receiving care through telemedicine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials involving more than 800 people were included. One trial was concerned with telemedicine in the emergency department, one with video-consultations between primary health care and the hospital outpatients department, and the remainder were concerned with the provision of home care or patient self-monitoring of chronic disease. The studies appeared to be well conducted, although patient numbers were small in all but one. Although none of the studies showed any detrimental effects from the interventions, neither did they show unequivocal benefits and the findings did not constitute evidence of the safety of telemedicine. None of the studies included formal economic analysis. All the technological aspects of the interventions appear to have been reliable, and to have been well accepted by patients. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Establishing systems for patient care using telecommunications technologies is feasible, but there is little evidence of clinical benefits. The studies provided variable and inconclusive results for other outcomes such as psychological measures, and no analysable data about the cost effectiveness of telemedicine systems. The review demonstrates the need for further research and the fact that it is feasible to carry out randomised trials of telemedicine applications. Policy makers should be cautious about recommending increased use and investment in unevaluated technologies.

Nursing record systems: effects on nursing practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A nursing record system is the record of care planned and/or given to individual patients/clients by qualified nurses or other caregivers under the direction of a qualified nurse. Nursing record systems may be an effective way of influencing nurse practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of nursing record systems on nursing practice and patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Cinahl, Sigle, and databases of the Royal College of Nursing, King's Fund, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Institute of Electrical Engineers up to August 1999; and OCLC First Search, Department of Health database, NHS Register of Computer Applications and the Health Visitors' Association database up to the end of 1995. We hand searched the Journal of Nursing Administration (1971-1999), Computers in Nursing (1984-1999), Information Technology in Nursing (1989-1999) and reference lists of articles. We also hand searched the major health informatics conference proceedings. We contacted experts in the field of nursing informatics, suppliers of nursing computer systems, and relevant Internet groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series comparing one kind of nursing record system with another, in hospital, community or primary care settings. The participants were qualified nurses, students or health care assistants working under the direction of a qualified nurse and patients receiving care recorded and/or planned using nursing record systems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 1407 people were included. In three studies of client held records, there were no overall positive or negative effects, although some administrative benefits through fewer missing notes were suggested. A paediatric pain management sheet study showed a positive effect on the children's pain intensity. A computerised nursing care planning study showed a negative effect on documented nursing care planning. A controlled before-and-after study of two paper nursing record systems showed improvement in meeting documentation standards. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of effects on practice attributable to changes in record systems. Although there is a paucity of studies of sufficient methodological rigour to yield reliable results in this area, it is clear from the literature that it is possible to set up randomised trials or other quasi-experimental designs needed to produce evidence for practice. The research undertaken so far may have suffered both from methodological problems and faulty hypotheses.

Prediction of small-for-dates infants by measurement of symphysial-fundal-height.

A standard chart of symphysial-fundal height from 20 to 40 weeks of pregnancy was derived from measurements in 103 women who were delivered of infants weighing between the 25th and 90th centile for gestation. The chart was used to predict birth weight in a group of 138 high-risk patients. Thirty (73.1 per cent) of 41 infants with birth weight for gestation less than 10th centile could be detected by this one clinical measurement. A single measurement was most accurate for detecting low birth weight for gestation at 32 to 33 weeks. It is suggested that symphysial-fundal height measurements should be made routinely on all antenatal patients and that each obstetric unit should derive its own standard curves.