A cost-effectiveness study of ICT training among the visually impaired in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Due to the ageing population, the number of visually impaired people in the Netherlands will increase. To ensure the future availability of services in rehabilitative eye care, we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) training among visually impaired adults from a societal perspective, using primary data from two large rehabilitative eye care providers in the Netherlands. METHODS: Participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire, which used six different instruments at three different time points: pre training, post training and three months post training. We investigated whether the participants' quality of life and well-being improved after the training and whether this improvement persisted three months post training. Economic evaluation was conducted by comparing costs and outcomes before and after training. Quality of life and well-being were derived from the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O, respectively. Costs for productivity losses and medical consumption were obtained from the questionnaires. Information regarding the costs of training sessions was provided by the providers. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants filled in all three questionnaires. The mean age at baseline was 63 years (SD = 16). The effect of ICT training on ICT skills and participants' well-being was positive and persisted three months after the last training session. Assuming these effects remain constant for 10 years, this would result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 11,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and € 8000 per year of well-being gained, when only the costs of ICT training are considered. When the total costs of medical consumption are included, the ICER increases to € 17,000 per QALY gained and € 12,000 per year of well-being gained. Furthermore, when the willingness-to-pay threshold is € 20,000 per year of well-being, the probability that ICT training will be cost-effective is 75% (91% when including only the costs of ICT training). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that ICT training among the visually impaired is cost-effective when the effects of ICT training on well-being persist for several years. However, further research involving a larger sample and incorporating long-term effects should be conducted.

Shared Care in Monitoring Stable Glaucoma Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Comparing the quality of care provided by a hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up unit with care as usual. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included stable glaucoma patients and patients at risk for developing glaucoma. Patients in the Usual Care group (n=410) were seen by glaucoma specialists. In the glaucoma follow-up unit group (n=405), patients visited the glaucoma follow-up unit twice followed by a visit to a glaucoma specialist. The main outcome measures were: compliance to the working protocol by glaucoma follow-up unit employees; difference in intraocular pressure between baseline and at ≥18 months; and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Glaucoma follow-up unit employees closely adhered to the working protocol for the measurement of intraocular pressure, visual acuity and GDx (≥97.5% of all visits). Humphrey Field Analyzer examinations were not performed as frequently as prescribed by the working protocol, but more often than in the Usual Care group. In a small minority of patients that required back-referral, the protocol was disregarded, notably when criteria were only slightly exceeded. There was no statistically significant difference in changes in intraocular pressure between the 2 treatment groups (P=0.854). Patients were slightly more satisfied with the glaucoma follow-up unit employees than with the glaucoma specialists (scores: 8.56 vs. 8.40; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up closely observed its working protocol and patients preferred it slightly over the usual care provided by medical doctors. The glaucoma follow-up unit operated satisfactorily and might serve as a model for shared care strategies elsewhere.

Why a successful task substitution in glaucoma care could not be transferred from a hospital setting to a primary care setting: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are challenged by a demand that exceeds available resources. One policy to meet this challenge is task substitution-transferring tasks to other professions and settings. Our study aimed to explore stakeholders' perceived feasibility of transferring hospital-based monitoring of stable glaucoma patients to primary care optometrists. METHODS: A case study was undertaken in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) using semi-structured interviews and document reviews. They were inductively analysed using three implementation related theoretical perspectives: sociological theories on professionalism, management theories, and applied political analysis. RESULTS: Currently it is not feasible to use primary care optometrists as substitutes for optometrists and ophthalmic technicians working in a hospital-based glaucoma follow-up unit (GFU). Respondents' narratives revealed that: the glaucoma specialists' sense of urgency for task substitution outside the hospital diminished after establishing a GFU that satisfied their professionalization needs; the return on investments were unclear; and reluctant key stakeholders with strong power positions blocked implementation. The window of opportunity that existed for task substitution in person and setting in 1999 closed with the institutionalization of the GFU. CONCLUSIONS: Transferring the monitoring of stable glaucoma patients to primary care optometrists in Rotterdam did not seem feasible. The main reasons were the lack of agreement on professional boundaries and work domains, the institutionalization of the GFU in the REH, and the absence of an appropriate reimbursement system. Policy makers considering substituting tasks to other professionals should carefully think about the implementation process, especially in a two-step implementation process (substitution in person and in setting) such as this case. Involving the substituting professionals early on to ensure all stakeholders see the change as a normal step in the professionalization of the substituting professionals is essential, as is implementing the task substitution within the window of opportunity.

Cost-effectiveness of monitoring glaucoma patients in shared care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Population aging increases the number of glaucoma patients which leads to higher workloads of glaucoma specialists. If stable glaucoma patients were monitored by optometrists and ophthalmic technicians in a glaucoma follow-up unit (GFU) rather than by glaucoma specialists, the specialists' workload and waiting lists might be reduced.We compared costs and quality of care at the GFU with those of usual care by glaucoma specialists in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) in a 30-month randomized clinical trial. Because quality of care turned out to be similar, we focus here on the costs. METHODS: Stable glaucoma patients were randomized between the GFU and the glaucoma specialist group. Costs per patient year were calculated from four perspectives: those of patients, the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH), Dutch healthcare system, and society. The outcome measures were: compliance to the protocol; patient satisfaction; stability according to the practitioner; mean difference in IOP; results of the examinations; and number of treatment changes. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics (such as age, intraocular pressure and target pressure) were comparable between the GFU group (n = 410) and the glaucoma specialist group (n = 405).Despite a higher number of visits per year, mean hospital costs per patient year were lower in the GFU group (€139 vs. €161). Patients' time and travel costs were similar. Healthcare costs were significantly lower for the GFU group (€230 vs. €251), as were societal costs (€310 vs. €339) (p < 0.01). Bootstrap-, sensitivity- and scenario-analyses showed that the costs were robust when varying hospital policy and the duration of visits and tests. CONCLUSION: We conclude that this GFU is cost-effective and deserves to be considered for implementation in other hospitals.