This site requires Javascript to function correctly
UKAuthority.com requires the use of cookies. Continued use of this site indicates that you accept this policy. More information.

Cookies and your privacy

In accordance with the ICO's EU e-Privacy Directive and to help protect your privacy we are making you aware of the use of cookies on this site.

We use these to aid in improving and maintaining our website. Cookies are used for functionality and to track visitor behaviour on this site, primarily for Google Analytics.

Google Inc are members of the US Safe Harbor Scheme. This scheme allows the transfer of data from within the EEA to countries that are outside of the EEA without having to enter into a specific data transfer agreement. Companies that sign up to the scheme are deemed to provide adequate protection for personal data transmitted from Europe. Google Inc's registration is at http://safeharbor.export.gov/companyinfo.aspx?id=10543.

For more information on the cookies set by Google Analytics please go to: http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/concepts/gaConceptsCookies.html.

This site also makes use of other essential Anonymous cookies, and the site won't work as expected without them. If you don't accept these anonymous cookies some features of the site may be unavailable.

UKAuthority.com's full privacy statement.

UKAuthority.com

Digital public sector news, research & engagement

Friday 22 June 2012Author: Dan Jellinek

Telehealth verdict: 'It's complicated'

Long-awaited results of one of the world's largest clinical studies of telehealth - the UK's "Whole Systems Demonstrator" (WSD) project - seem to raise more questions than they answer. Some apparently clear benefits are offset by puzzling findings in the control group and unclear levels of potential cost savings.

An international team led by researchers at the Nuffield Trust have pored over the data generated from the 2009-10 trials at three sites in Cornwall, Kent and the London Borough of Newham to assess the impact of telehealth on hospital use for 3,230 patients with long term conditions (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure).

Patients were randomly split into two groups, with half taught how to monitor their condition at home and transmit the data (for example on blood pressure or glucose levels) electronically to health care professionals and the other half receiving usual care.

The results, in a paper to the British Medical Journal published today on bmj.com, found telehealth can help patients with long-term conditions avoid emergency hospital care, and also reduce deaths. However, the estimated scale of hospital cost savings is modest and may not be sufficient to offset the cost of the technology, the report finds. Overall the evidence does not warrant full scale roll-out but more careful exploration, it says.

During the study period, significantly fewer (43%) of intervention patients were admitted to hospital compared with 48% of control patients. Even more strikingly, significantly fewer (4.6%) of intervention patients died compared with 8.3% of controls: a 45% reduction in the mortality rate.

There were also cuts in emergency hospital admissions per head (0.54 for intervention patients compared with 0.68 for controls) and the mean hospital stay per head (4.87 days for intervention patients compared with 5.68 days for controls). This may be because telehealth helps patients better manage their conditions, or that telehealth changes people's perception of when they need to seek additional support, the report finds. However, it says these effects appear to be linked with short term increases in hospital use among control patients, the reasons for which are not clear: a puzzling finding which clearly needs further research to bottom out.

Overall the estimated cost savings are modest as any benefits need to be balanced against the cost of the technology, and this latest evidence does not warrant full scale roll-out but more careful exploration, the reportfinds. "There is great potential but also still much to be done."

This is a setback for champions of telehealth, though the positive signs are also promising. If there are any savings to be made, clearly several new trials need to be launched as soon as possible to determine exactly how great these can be. Champions of telehealth will also point out that patient-centred care brings it own benefits and is hugely preferential to institutionalised care, even if cost savings are marginal. The cut in mortality will also be attractive to patients, if not bean counters.

       
UKA Live: view recorded interviews
UKA Live Pre Registration