A Cost Evaluation of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services in England

Sonila M. Tomini (), Efthalia Massou, Nadia E. Crellin, Naomi J. Fulop, Theo Georghiou, Lauren Herlitz, Ian Litchfield, Pei Li Ng, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Manbinder S. Sidhu, Holly Walton and Stephen Morris
Additional contact information
Sonila M. Tomini: University College London
Efthalia Massou: University of Cambridge
Nadia E. Crellin: The Nuffield Trust
Naomi J. Fulop: University College London
Theo Georghiou: The Nuffield Trust
Lauren Herlitz: NIHR Children and Families Policy Research Unit, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health
Ian Litchfield: University of Birmingham
Pei Li Ng: University College London
Chris Sherlaw-Johnson: The Nuffield Trust
Manbinder S. Sidhu: University of Birmingham
Holly Walton: University College London
Stephen Morris: University of Cambridge

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2024, vol. 8, issue 5, No 9, 739-753

Abstract: Abstract Background Remote home monitoring services emerged as critical components of health care delivery from NHS England during the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to provide timely interventions and reduce health care system burden. Two types of service were offered: referral by community health services to home-based care to ensure the right people were admitted to the hospital at the right time (called COVID Oximetry@home, CO@h); and referral by hospital to support patients’ transition from hospital to home (called COVID-19 Virtual Ward, CVW). The information collected for the oxygen levels and other symptoms was provided via digital means (technology-enabled) or over the phone (analogue-only submission mode). This study aimed to evaluate the costs of implementing remote home monitoring for COVID-19 patients across 26 sites in England during wave 2 of the pandemic. Understanding the operational and financial implications of these services from the NHS perspective is essential for effective resource allocation and service planning. Methods We used a bottom-up costing approach at the intervention level to describe the costs of setting up and running the services. Twenty-six implementation sites reported the numbers of patients and staff involved in the service and other resources used. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis were used to assess cost variations and quantify the relationship between the number of users and costs while adjusting for other service characteristics. Results The mean cost per patient monitored was lower in the CO@h service compared with the CVW service (£527 vs £599). The mean cost per patient was lower for implementation sites using technology-enabled and analogue data submission modes compared with implementation sites using analogue-only modes for both CO@h (£515 vs £561) and CVW (£584 vs £612) services. The number of patients enrolled in the services and the service type significantly affected the mean cost per patient. Conclusions Our analysis provides a framework for evaluating the costs of similar services in the future and shows that the implementation of these services benefit from the employment of tech-enabled data submission modes.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00498-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().