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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Different home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients have different costs and results. On average, CO@h services cost slightly less per patient than CVW services. |
Using technology to give patients more control over their care can save time for NHS staff and money for health care providers. |
Decision makers should consider the amount of health care used and the results it brings when deciding if remote monitoring services are good value for money for different health issues. |
1 Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic originated in China in December 2019, with the UK’s first positive case reported in late January 2020, and person-to-person transmission within the country confirmed by late February [1, 2]. Late lockdown activities, rapid spread of the virus and critical capacity challenges pre-dating the pandemic created unprecedented pressure within the NHS. Hospital attendance was restricted to urgent and emergency care only. The urgent need to free up 30,000 beds by early discharge of clinically ready patients and manage avoidable hospital admission at home led to the establishment of alternative health care services [3].
During the first wave of the pandemic (March to July 2020), some areas in England developed ad hoc services that provided remote home monitoring using pulse oximetry for COVID-19. This was done to reduce the number of patients arriving at hospitals with very low oxygen saturations (often without breathlessness, also known as ‘silent hypoxia’), to prevent invasive treatments and potential intensive care admissions, leading to improved outcomes for patients [4,5,6]. Learning from these preliminary services, in November 2020, the NHS in England launched a national roll-out of a remote home monitoring service for COVID-19 patients known as ‘COVID Oximetry@home’ (CO@h), which was generally provided by primary care and was designed to allow less acute but vulnerable people’s care to be managed safely at home [7]. In January 2021, an additional patient self-monitoring pathway, operated by secondary care, was introduced, called ‘COVID Virtual Ward’ (CVW) [8]. While CO@h services were focused on COVID-19 patients in the community, CVW was intended to support patients being discharged from hospitals and included patients who were severely ill.
The implementation of both pathways was similar, justifying their joint investigation in the current study, and included pulse oximeters that were given to patients who were asked to routinely record and submit oxygen saturation levels and other symptoms to a team of administrators and/or clinicians via digital technologies or over the phone. Patients were then escalated for further investigation if the clinical teams considered it necessary. Implementation sites adopted two mixed methods for monitoring patients, namely (i) tech-enabled and analogue data submission mode (patients could submit their symptoms using either a tech-enabled option like app, weblink, or automated phone calls, or an analogue method, i.e., phone calls with a health professional), reducing the time spent by health professionals to enter data; (ii) analogue-only data submission mode (patients could record their readings on paper and submit the data through phone calls or face-to-face visits with a health professional) [9].
For a patient to be eligible for either CVW or CO@h, they had to be resident in one of the 106 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England, or in a Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) group, have a positive PCR COVID-19 test and not be a care home resident at the time of their positive test. The national standard operating procedure established the original eligibility criterion for enrolment as patients over 65 years of age; however, local standards may vary, expanding the age range to include people aged 50 and over [10].
This study was part of a larger evaluation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services which included two phases. Phase one (July–August 2020) involved a rapid systematic review [11] and an empirical mixed-methods study, which included an exploration of the experiences of staff implementing these models, the use of data for monitoring outcomes and variability in staffing and resource allocation [4]. In phase two (January–June 2021), a large-scale, multi-site, mixed methods study examined clinical effectiveness, cost analysis, implementation and patient/staff experience [6, 12,13,14,15]. Despite cost analyses having been carried out for remote home monitoring of some conditions, there is limited evidence in the literature regarding the effectiveness, costs, resource use and workforce implications associated with remote monitoring for COVID-19, as well as the impact of different data submission modes [11]. Our study evaluates the financial implications, allocation of resources and patient enrolment in home monitoring programs, offering evidence-based insights to guide decision making and health care policy development.
The main aim of this study was to evaluate the costs of implementing remote home monitoring for COVID-19 patients across 26 selected sites during wave 2 of the pandemic in England (October 2020–April 2021). The study also aimed to generalise the findings to the national level, as well as identify potential differences between services and modes of delivering these services. To meet these aims, we have collected and analysed data on patient enrolment and care and staffing involved in providing CO@h and CVW services from October 2020 to April 2021.
2 Methods
Our analysis focused on evaluating the costs of remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients in England from October 2020 to April 2021. We assessed the costs of these services from the NHS perspective, considering the above-mentioned period. Follow-up events, such as hospital or intensive care admissions, were not included due to data limitations.
2.1 Costs Identification
When evaluating new interventions, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends taking into account all relevant NHS costs that could be affected as a result [16]. These include changes in staff numbers and time spent on different activities, training and education requirements, support services (like laboratory tests) and overall service capacity or facilities (including hospital beds, diagnostic services, etc) [17]. Careful consideration of these costs and identification of any constraints on the resources needed to support implementation may significantly impact decision making during prospective evaluations and service planning [18, 19].
We took an NHS perspective to measure costs. All costs were calculated in 2021 UK£ (November 2021: 1GBP = $1.368USD; 1GBP = 1.184EUR). Therefore, we first identified the following items of resource use to include in our analysis: staff; utilisation and maintenance of remote monitoring methods (including digital remote monitoring systems); oximeters; other medical equipment (e.g., thermometers, defibrillators); and other non-medical equipment (e.g., office and IT equipment, stationery). This aligns with NICE methodological guidelines, which recommend breaking down costs into appropriate generic organisational categories and budgetary categories [17] (see also Fig. 1).
The costs were separated into (i) those related to setting up CO@h and CVW services and (ii) those related to running the service delivery. This distinction was made in line with previous methods used to analyse the costs of telemedicine interventions [20]. The setting-up costs encompassed investments in the remote technology-enabled monitoring platform, procurement of other medical and non-medical equipment required for setting up, as well as staff-related costs (including hours worked and staff involved in setting up the services). The running costs refer to regular and ongoing expenses incurred during the operation of services, including costs related to medical equipment provided to patients, staff involved in service delivery and the maintenance of the technology-enabled platforms. All costs and resource use items were additionally categorised by the mode used to monitor patients (technology-enabled with analogue mode or analogue-only mode).
We quantified costs using a detailed bottom-up approach [21] (see also Fig. 1). This entailed gathering data on resource utilisation and costs for each. Resources used were collected in the appropriate physical units (e.g., hours spent per nurse, physician or other staff by employment band or seniority, etc.) in line with current guidelines and best practices for health economic evaluations [17].
2.2 Cost Valuation
In this section, we explore how the costs of the intervention were determined, using unit costs from reliable sources and data collected from questionnaires. Unit costs extracted from routinely published sources or collected questionnaires were multiplied by the volume of resource use for each item [22]. They were then summed across all items to calculate costs. Due to short-term follow-up (< 1 year), costs were not discounted.
Staff-related costs were calculated using published unit costs per hour and the information collected from study sites about staff hours and salary bands [23]. Clinical staff were divided into three sub-groups based on their salary band (Band 5 or below, Bands 6–7, or Band 8 or above), while non-clinical staff were divided into two sub-groups (Band 5 or below, Band 6 and above). The unit cost per pulse oximeter was reported as varying between £20 and £25 (US$27.36–S$34.2) and we used the mid-point of this range (£22.5; US$30.78) unless a specific unit cost was reported by the site. Unit costs for other non-staff-related resources used (e.g., unit cost of thermometers that might have been given to enrolled patients) were reported through the collected questionnaires.
The costs for similar implementation sites were aggregated (we took the weighted mean value, weighted by the number of patients), enabling us to evaluate the overall financial impact of the intervention and understand how site-specific complexities may influence these costs.
2.3 Data Collection
We gathered information retrospectively using an electronic data collection form. The form was sent to 28 purposively selected implementation sites (COVID‐19 remote home monitoring services delivered in NHS trusts or primary care providers) that were representative of a range of regions, in terms of levels of deprivation, population size and urban/rural mix and ethnic group make-up [6]. Data were collected for the period from 1 October 2020 to 30 April 2021. The form distinguished between the setting-up and running stage of the COVID-19 remote home monitoring services, considering the information on the staff and resources used (Fig. 1).
The information on the number of patients triaged and monitored, those whose health deteriorated and were escalated for treatment (following health deterioration) and the number who died was also collected and used to calculate the mean costs per patient.
2.4 Data Analysis
We calculated the costs incurred for setting up and running the CO@h and CVW services, also examining the variation by data submission mode. We adjusted the resources used and costs incurred per patient by applying weights based on the number of patients monitored by each service (CO@h and CVW) and the total number of patients at each site.
The setting-up costs were only reported as a mean cost per site (as the duration of the running period and the lifespan of digital platforms may exceed our study period). The running costs were calculated as mean costs per patient for the period October 2020 to April 2021. The mean costs per patient were calculated by dividing the total costs of each service by the number of patients for each site. We adjusted the resources used and costs incurred per patient by applying weights based on the number of patients monitored by each service (CO@h and CVW) and the total number at each site. For implementation sites running both CO@h and CVW services, we calculated the mean setting-up and mean per-patient running costs of these services separately.
The number of pulse oximeters used during the study was based on the number of patients monitored. An assumption was made that 70% of these pulse oximeters would be returned and reused. This was based on results from a patient and carer survey (n = 1069), which showed that 69% of patients or carers had returned the pulse oximeter (range 21.5–100% by site) [6]. Therefore, only 30% of the costs of these pulse oximeters were accounted for during the study period.
2.5 Robustness Checks and Sensitivity Analysis
The mean running cost per patient could be affected by factors such as the type of service, data submission mode, seniority of staff and the total number of patients monitored. We investigated whether the mean running cost per patient was associated with these factors by using a multivariable regression analysis. This method allows us to quantify the relationship between the number of users and costs, adjusting for other service characteristics. The regression analysis controls for the type of service, data submission mode, seniority of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and the total number of patients monitored to explore the main determinants of the costs. Bootstrapping with 10,000 iterations was used to estimate the standard errors of the regression model coefficients. We investigated the sensitivity of our findings to alternative specifications of staff seniority. Statistical tests and regression analyses were conducted using Stata v.18.
2.6 Projection of Findings on Costs at the National Level
To extend the analysis to a national level, we estimated the total national costs of the CO@h and CVW services by combining our findings with data from other parts of the study [24]. For example, we utilised data from the number of people who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for CO@h and CVW services and multiplied these by the estimated proportion of patients using the CO@h and CVW services and the mean running cost per patient for each service. Finally, the findings of this study were triangulated with other quantitative and qualitative evaluation studies of the same COVID-19 remote home monitoring services [6].
3 Results
Twenty-six out of the 28 implementation sites (with a survey response rate of 92.8%) returned the data collection form, of which 13 provided CO@h services, four provided CVW services and nine provided both CO@h and CVW services. The data on costs are presented as mean costs per patient using patient engagement as well as clinical and non-clinical workforce utilised throughout various care stages.
3.1 Patients and Outcomes
Detailed information on the number of patients monitored using CO@h and CVW services and using the different submission modes is provided in Table 1. The uptake among those who were triaged was much higher for the CVW service than the CO@h service. The proportion of patients who were escalated and the proportion who died among those monitored was higher for the CO@h services compared with the CVW services (16.6% and 10.8%, respectively, for escalated patients and 0.9% and 0.7%, respectively, for the number of deaths).
Of the 22 implementation sites running CO@h services, 16 used tech-enabled and analogue modes and six used analogue-only modes. Of the 13 implementation sites running a CVW service, six used the tech-enabled and analogue data submission modes and seven used the analogue-only mode. From the total number of patients monitored in the CO@h services, 76.8% (i.e., 13,379/17,424 patients) were followed up using the tech-enabled and analogue data submission modes, while for CVW services, 39.2% of patients (i.e., 671/1711 patients) were followed up using the tech-enabled and analogue data submission modes.
3.2 Workforce
The number of FTE staff involved in running the CO@h service was on average 7.4 per site (range 1.0–39.0) and for the CVW service it was 2.1 per site (range 0.1–4.8). Staff involved were a mix of medical consultants, emergency department (ED) staff, GPs, nurses, advanced nurse practitioners and medical students. Table 2 provides summary information on the mean number of FTE staff by role and band and stratified by type of service (detailed information with size of site is provided in Appendix 1). For both CO@h and CVW services, most of the staff involved in monitoring patients were clinical (68.4% for CO@h and 86.7% for CVW). There were no clear differences in the proportion of clinical/non-clinical staff or seniority of the staff between CO@h and CVW services (Table 2).
Table 2 also shows that across all implementation sites running CO@h services, 53.0% of staff were employed at Band 5 or below (27.1% non-clinical and 25.9% clinical staff). Implementation sites using tech-enabled and analogue modes had a higher proportion of non-clinical staff at Band 5 or below (33.1% non-clinical and 18.6% clinical staff) compared with analogue-only implementation sites (16.8% non-clinical and 38.5% clinical staff).
Across all implementation sites running CVW, 51.3% of all staff involved (50.4% clinical and 0.9% non-clinical) were employed at Band 6 and above. A similar trend was observed for the implementation sites using analogue-only modes where 54.1% of all staff involved (53.6% clinical and 0.5% non-clinical) were employed at Band 6 and above, whereas for the tech-enabled and analogue mode, most staff involved (51.6%; 34.1% clinical and 17.5% non-clinical) were at Band 5 and below.
3.3 Costs
Table 3 provides detailed information on the resources utilised during the setting-up and running period per patient triaged and monitored for both CO@h and CVW services translated into the costs. To assess costs, we utilise data on the number of triaged and monitored patients, along with the hours allocated for clinical and non-clinical staff across different bands. These data show that during the setting-up phase, the largest component of the costs was for non-staff items (e.g., the technology platform, medical and other equipment). In terms of running costs, the mean cost per patient monitored using the CO@h service was marginally lower compared with the CVW service (£527.5 vs £599.1; US$721.62 vs US$819.57). The mean cost per patient monitored was lower for implementation sites using tech-enabled and analogue data submission modes compared with the implementation sites using analogue-only modes for both CO@h (£515 vs £561; US$704.52 vs US$767.4) and CVW (£584 vs £612; US$798.91 vs US$837.22) services.
The total number of people who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the remote home monitoring services for the period from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021 has been estimated at the national level as 217,650 [24]. Our study showed that 91% of the patients enrolled on remote home monitoring services were in CO@h services, while the rest were in CVW services (Table 1). Assuming that the ratio between patients in CO@h services and CVW services found in our data was the same at the national level, the number of nationally eligible patients for CVW services was estimated to be 21,366. If these services were fully implemented and all eligible patients received them, the estimated cost for the CO@h service would be £114,810,375 (US$157,060,593), and for the CVW service it would be £12,800,599 (US$17,511,219.43).
We investigated whether the mean running costs per patient at each site were associated with the total number of patients monitored. Figures 2 and 3 show a positive relationship (slope coefficient for the CO@h service 0.54 [95% CI 0.19–0.89] and for CVW service 2.10 [95% CI 0.16–4.03]) between the number of patients monitored and the mean running cost per patient for the CO@h and CVW services, respectively. It appears that the majority of expenses associated with running this operation are variable costs, which should rise in proportion to the number of patients being monitored. Figures 2 and 3 show that variable costs rise faster than the rise in the number of patients, especially for the CVW service, which is something that needs to be monitored if more data are available in the future.
We regressed the mean running cost against the type of service, data submission mode, seniority of FTE staff and the total number of patients monitored. Table 4 provides the multivariable regression analysis results, where the coefficients of this table represent the difference in the predicted mean running cost per patient for each one-unit change in the independent variables, assuming all other independent variables are held constant.
Results showed that a key determinant (p < 0.01) of costs was the number of patients monitored, with the mean running cost per patient increasing slightly by £0.62 (US$0.85) for each patient monitored, assuming all other control variables remain constant. The type of service was another statistically significant determinant (p < 0.05) with CO@h associated with £457.99 (US$334.06) lower mean running costs than CVW. Even though the type of data submission mode and the FTE difference between the senior and junior staff involved were not statistically significant predictors of mean running costs per patient, the direction of their effect was consistent with the descriptive findings that indicated a lower mean running cost per patient for the tech-enabled and analogue data submission mode. In a sensitivity analysis, the results remained similar in terms of the direction of coefficients and their significance when we varied the number of patients within the 95% confidence interval values for tech-enabled and analogue and analogue-only sites (Appendix 2). Note that these findings should be considered with caution due to the small sample size (N = 35 sites).
4 Discussion
This study provides insights into the operational and financial aspects of remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients, offering possible implications for health care provision and policy development. By examining data collected from 26 health care implementation sites between October 2020 and April 2021, we have identified trends and factors influencing the costs of these services.
Our analysis showed that the average running cost per patient was £527.5 (US$721.62) for CO@h services and £599.1 (US$819.57) for CVW services. While differences in costs between technology-enabled and analogue data submissions were observed, we found that patients were responsible for data entry with technology-enabled and analogue submission mode, requiring less time from NHS staff. This underscores the potential efficiency gains from an NHS perspective associated with empowering patients to actively participate in their care management, with broader implications for health care resource utilisation and workforce allocation.
Any comparison in costs, patients’ enrolment and workforce between the services comes with questions about their appropriateness and usefulness, given that the two services enrol different groups of patients and run independently from each other. Our findings should be used cautiously; however, they provide useful evidence for the programme, which relies on the rationale that both CO@h and CVW represent remote home monitoring services implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. By evaluating them together, we can understand the differences in cost structures, resource allocation, and outcomes between these two services. This comparison can provide valuable insights into the efficiency and effectiveness of different approaches to remote home monitoring for COVID-19 patients in England. Also, CO@h and CVW services share common resources, such as digital technologies, clinical staff, administrative support, and infrastructure. Assessing the costs of both services in the same study allows us to conduct a comprehensive analysis of resource utilisation and cost allocation across different settings and patient groups. This information can inform resource planning and optimisation strategies for future pandemic response efforts. Conducting a single study that evaluates multiple remote home monitoring services can also enable policymakers to consider a broader range of options and make informed decisions regarding resource allocation, funding priorities, and service delivery models. Policymakers can gain a better understanding of the economic implications of different remote monitoring approaches and tailor their policies accordingly.
Moreover, our regression analysis highlighted the impact of the number of patients monitored and the type of service on the financial aspects of remote home monitoring initiatives. Variable costs for CVW services increased considerably with the number of patients monitored. However, scaling up services may introduce operational challenges and resource constraints that need careful management to ensure service quality and patient safety. It's important to note that our analysis was based on a small sample size (N = 35 sites), and the findings should be interpreted cautiously.
Our study addresses a gap in the existing literature on remote health care services by focusing on the cost of COVID-19-related remote monitoring services. By providing detailed insights into resource use and costs, our analysis provides further information about the financial implications of remote home monitoring services. This information can assist health care decision makers in making informed decisions about resource allocation and service planning. Additionally, our study identifies important predictors, such as the number of monitored patients and the type of service, which can further aid decision makers in determining financial outcomes. This is in the context of previous literature that often lacks comprehensive economic analysis [11].
Our study findings suggest the possibility of cost-saving benefits associated with technology-enabled interventions compared with analogue-enabled patient monitoring, consistent with prior research indicating that telehealth interventions may yield cost savings for health care services, particularly in reaching remote or underserved populations [25]. Previous literature generally supports the notion that virtual monitoring and screening interventions tailored for COVID-19 patients hold promise for delivering cost savings by reducing downstream expenses, such as decreasing hospital admissions and bed days [26, 27]. Additionally, across various health care settings and from the perspective of health care providers, the adoption of telehealth for health care delivery has been linked to cost savings, especially in reaching geographically isolated areas [25, 28]. Nonetheless, the cost effectiveness of remote patient monitoring could vary depending on multiple factors, including the specific implementation context, characteristics of the patient population, and the integration of monitoring services into existing health care pathways [29,30,31]. Furthermore, the realisation of potential cost savings through technology relies on certain assumptions, such as the notion that digital assessments result in shorter interactions, leading to fewer follow-up contacts and decreased symptom deterioration, thereby potentially averting hospital readmissions. However, it is essential to exercise caution, as these assumptions may not universally apply [32].
Our results offer insights into financial aspects, selected patient outcomes, and staffing implications extending beyond the pandemic. Moreover, the broad geographic coverage of implementation sites across England and primary data collection on CO@h and CVW service usage enhance the study's analytical rigour, filling a gap in COVID-related remote monitoring services literature. The study's findings have implications for health care provision, particularly in deploying remote home monitoring services, which may be useful during future infectious outbreaks like NHS bed crises in peak flu seasons. Remote care availability may reduce hospital admissions, facilitate early discharge, and mitigate health care-associated infections, lowering mortality, morbidity, and costs [33].
One important limitation of our study is that it focuses only on the costs of setting up and running monitoring services. We could not conduct an economic evaluation, such as a cost-utility analysis, due to the lack of evidence linking CO@h and CVW services with mortality or downstream hospital and other NHS utilisation [12, 13, 24]. Additionally, we were only able to obtain aggregate rather than patient-level data from sites and included a relatively small number of sites. All of these are additional limitations of our study and may have affected the accuracy and generalisability of our findings.
5 Conclusions
This study provides evidence about the costs and resource use associated with different types of remote home monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future interventions in remote monitoring for various health conditions should evaluate their impact on both primary and secondary care utilisation, and health outcomes. Future research should also focus on gathering data on total capacity, which will aid in planning of services.
References
Tichopád A, Pecen L, Sedlák V. Could the new coronavirus have infected humans prior November 2019? PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8): e0248255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248255. (PMID:34411115; PMCID:PMC8375974).
Flynn D, Moloney E, Bhattarai N, Scott J, Breckons M, Avery L, et al. COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Health Policy Technol. 2020;9(4):673–91.
Social Care Institute for Excellence. Hospital discharge and preventing unnecessary hospital admissions (COVID-19). 2022. https://www.scie.org.uk/care-providers/coronavirus-covid-19/commissioning/hospital-discharge-admissions. Accessed Dec 2023.
Vindrola-Padros C, Sidhu MS, Georghiou T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Singh KE, Tomini SM, et al. The implementation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;34:100799.
Levitan RM. Pulse oximetry as a biomarker for early identification and hospitalization of COVID-19 pneumonia. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(8):785.
Fulop N WH, Crellin N, Georghiou T, Herlitz L, Litchfield I et al. A rapid mixed methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Southampton: NIHR Health and Social Care Delivery Research Topic Report; 2022. https://doi.org/10.3310/FVQW4410. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK595751/. Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
NHS England and NHS Improvement. Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) standard operating procedure: COVID Oximetry@home; 2020. https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/covid-19-guidance-note-covid-oximetry-at-home/. Accessed Dec 2023.
NHS England and NHS Improvement. Supporting hospital discharge: establishment of COVID virtual wards; 2021. https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/documents/supporting-hospital-discharge-establishment-of-covid-virtual-wards/. Accessed Dec 2023.
Fulop NJ, Walton H, Crellin N, Georghiou T, Herlitz L, Litchfield I, et al. Technology-enabled and analogue models of remote home monitoring care for COVID-19: a rapid mixed-method evaluation of patient and staff experiences. A rapid mixed-methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2023.
NIHR RSET NB, Imperial College London, The Health Foundation, NHS England and NHS Improvement, COVID Oximetry @Home evaluation: interpretation of findings. 2021.
Vindrola-Padros C, Singh KE, Sidhu MS, Georghiou T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Tomini SM, et al. Remote home monitoring (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients: a rapid systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;37:100965.
Sherlaw-Johnson C, Georghiou T, Morris S, Crellin NE, Litchfield I, Massou E, et al. The impact of remote home monitoring of people with COVID-19 using pulse oximetry: a national population and observational study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;45:101318.
Georghiou T, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Massou E, Morris S, Crellin NE, Herlitz L, et al. The impact of post-hospital remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients using pulse oximetry: a national observational study using hospital activity data. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;48:101441.
Walton H, Vindrola-Padros C, Crellin NE, Sidhu MS, Herlitz L, Litchfield I, et al. Patients’ experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: a rapid mixed-methods study. Health Expect. 2022;25(5):2386–404.
Sidhu M, Walton H, Crellin N, Ellins J, Herlitz L, Litchfield I, et al. Staff experiences of training and delivery of remote home monitoring services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in England: a mixed-methods study. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2023;28(3):171–80.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction. Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. NICE process and methods [PMG36]; 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/introduction-to-health-technology-evaluation. Accessed 12 Jan 2024.
O’Beirne M, Reid R, Zwicker K, Sterling P, Sokol E, Flemons W, et al. The costs of developing, implementing, and operating a safety learning system in community practice. J Patient Saf. 2013;9(4):211–8.
Severens JLHT, Adang E, Wensing M. Economic evaluation of implementation strategies In: Wensing MGR, Grimshaw J, editors. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care, Chap. 23. 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley; 2013. p. 389–405.
Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2): e11330.
Chapko MK, Liu CF, Perkins M, Li YF, Fortney JC, Maciejewski ML. Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down. Health Econ. 2009;18(10):1188–201.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Curtis LA, Burns A. Care 2020. Unit costs of health and social care. PSSRU, University of Kent. 2020. ISBN 978-1-911353-12-6.
Beaney T, Clarke J, Alboksmaty A, Flott K, Fowler A, Benger J, et al. Population-level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with COVID-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design. Emerg Med J. 2022;39(8):575–82.
Caffery LJ, Bradford NK, Wickramasinghe SI, Hayman N, Smith AC. Outcomes of using telehealth for the provision of healthcare to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017;41(1):48–53.
Nunan J, Clarke D, Malakouti A, Tannetta D, Calthrop A, Xu XH, et al. Triage into the community for COVID-19 (TICC-19) patients pathway-service evaluation of the virtual monitoring of patients with COVID pneumonia. Acute Med. 2020;19(4):183–91.
Schultz K, Vickery H, Campbell K, Wheeldon M, Barrett-Beck L, Rushbrook E. Implementation of a virtual ward as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aust Health Rev. 2021;45(4):433–41.
Chang J, Savage SJ, Waldman DM. Estimating willingness to pay for online health services with discrete-choice experiments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15:491–500.
Salisbury C, Murphy M, Duncan P. The impact of digital-first consultations on workload in general practice: modeling study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6): e18203.
Mistry H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare.e Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(1):1–6.
Sicotte C, Lehoux P, Van Doesburg N, Cardinal G, Leblanc Y. A cost-effectiveness analysis of interactive paediatric telecardiology. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(2):78–83.
Newbould J, Abel G, Ball S, Corbett J, Elliott M, Exley J, et al. Evaluation of telephone first approach to demand management in English general practice: observational study. BMJ. 2017;358:j4197.
Pryor RJ, Vokes R, Anderson D, Bearman G. Virtual infection prevention—the next frontier. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42(11):1374–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding information
National Institute for Health Research, Health Services and Delivery Research programme, Grant/Award Numbers: 16/138/17, 16/138/31.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for this study was granted from the University of Birmingham Humanities and Social Sciences ethics committee (ERN_13-1085AP39) and was categorised as a service evaluation by the HRA decision tool and UCL/UCLH Joint Research Office (Jan 2021).
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication (from participants)
All individual participants provided written informed consent for the publication of any anonymised associated data.
Availability of data and material
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Access to anonymised data may be granted following review.
Code availability
All code requests should be submitted to the corresponding author for consideration.
Authors’ contributions
All the authors agree that the authors listed would all be considered authors according to disciplinary norms, and that no person who would reasonably be considered an author has been excluded. SMT and EM undertook the analysis of data and contributed to the study design, data curation, interpretation of findings and writing of the manuscript. SM led the conceptualisation of the study, contributed to the study design, data curation, and interpretation of findings. All other authors contributed to the design of the study and the interpretation of the findings, reviewed and provided feedback on draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final version. NJF led the overall mixed methods evaluation of which this study relates to one workstream.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tomini, S.M., Massou, E., Crellin, N.E. et al. A Cost Evaluation of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services in England. PharmacoEconomics Open 8, 739–753 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00498-3