Scholarlink

<p>This study aims to quantify the financial and environmental savings associated with remote follow up in patients undergoing lower limb arterial surgery. A prospective observational study evaluating financial cost(fC) and environmental cost(eC) of postoperative follow-up models. Remote-first screening(RFS), where all patients were reviewed remotely, and complications triaged for face-to-face assessment and treatment. The second model was remote-first treatment(RFT): all patients were reviewed remotely, but only high-risk complications trigger face-to-face review. Both were compared with conventional face-to-face review. All participants received both face-to-face and remote review. 105 patients were included. RFS has a per patient mean reduction of 30.8.0±26.2 kgCO<sub>2</sub>e(RR 71.0%, <i>p</i> &lt; <i>0.001</i>) and fC reduction of £60.17±42.98(RR 87.0%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). RFT has a mean reduction of 38.5±17.4 kgCO<sub>2</sub>e(RR 88.8%, <i>p</i> &lt; <i>0.001</i>) and fC reduction of £83.29±45.51(RR 87.0%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Remote models demonstrated economic and environmental gains over routine face-to-face assessments. Integration of these analyses into health intervention assessment is important to reducing climate change.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Postoperative remote first care for financially and environmentally sustainable healthcare

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月21日

查看全文
  • Ross Lathan,
  • Louise Hitchman,
  • Josephine Walshaw,
  • Bharadhwaj Ravindhran,
  • Daniel Carradice,
  • George Smith,
  • Ian Chetter,
  • Marina Yiasemidou

摘要

This study aims to quantify the financial and environmental savings associated with remote follow up in patients undergoing lower limb arterial surgery. A prospective observational study evaluating financial cost(fC) and environmental cost(eC) of postoperative follow-up models. Remote-first screening(RFS), where all patients were reviewed remotely, and complications triaged for face-to-face assessment and treatment. The second model was remote-first treatment(RFT): all patients were reviewed remotely, but only high-risk complications trigger face-to-face review. Both were compared with conventional face-to-face review. All participants received both face-to-face and remote review. 105 patients were included. RFS has a per patient mean reduction of 30.8.0±26.2 kgCO2e(RR 71.0%, p < 0.001) and fC reduction of £60.17±42.98(RR 87.0%, p < 0.001). RFT has a mean reduction of 38.5±17.4 kgCO2e(RR 88.8%, p < 0.001) and fC reduction of £83.29±45.51(RR 87.0%, p < 0.001). Remote models demonstrated economic and environmental gains over routine face-to-face assessments. Integration of these analyses into health intervention assessment is important to reducing climate change.