CORE
CO
nnecting
RE
positories
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Research partnership
About
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Community governance
Governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
Innovations
Our research
Labs
Ear, nose, and throat surgical access for remote living Indigenous children: What is the least costly model?
Authors
SP Jacups
I Kinchin
KM McConnon
Publication date
1 January 2018
Publisher
'Wiley'
Doi
Cite
Abstract
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Rationale, aims, and objectives: This costing evaluation compares three service delivery models for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery for remote living Indigenous children to improve their hearing outcomes, with the aim to identify the least costly model. Methods: The main outcome measure presented was the incremental cost difference between the base case (Model 1) and two alternative models (Model 2, 3). The costs in 2017 Australian dollars are assessed from two viewpoints: (1) health system perspective, and (2) patients and their families including travel out-of-pocket expenses, presented separately according to the funding source. Results: Findings indicate that the least costly model offered low-risk ENT surgery from a state funded hospital in a remote setting, with high use of videoconference technology: TeleHealth (Model 3) could save
3626
t
o
3626 to
3626
t
o
5067 per patient, compared with patients travelling to a regional centre public hospital (Model 1). A federally funded scheme which allowed groups of patients to access a direct flight charter transfer to the private hospital in regional centre (Model 2) reduced the cost by
2178
t
o
2178 to
2178
t
o
2711 per patient when compared with standard care (Model 1). From a societal perspective, Model 1 required out-of-pocket patient expenses, with greater time away from home, and hence appears the least preferred option. Conclusions: The sensitivity analyses also demonstrate that Model 3 would be the more economical model for providing ENT surgery for remote living children. By proving an accurate assessment of the true costs of delivering these important ear and hearing health services, strategic health service planners may be better informed and sufficient budgets can be allocated to provide improved service delivery. The benefits of Model 3, over Models 1 or 2, would also incorporate improvements to patient safety as a result of reducing patient travel, which should in-turn, reduce failure-to-attend rates
Similar works
Full text
Available Versions
ResearchOnline@JCU
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:researchonline.jcu.edu.au:...
Last time updated on 09/07/2024
ResearchOnline at James Cook University
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:researchonline.jcu.edu.au:...
Last time updated on 18/04/2020
OPUS - University of Technology Sydney
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:opus.lib.uts.edu.au:10453/...
Last time updated on 18/10/2019
ACQUIRE
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:acquire.cqu.edu.au:cqu:180...
Last time updated on 23/05/2019
aCQUIRe
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:figshare.com:article/13447...
Last time updated on 20/10/2022