SAFE@HOME: Cost analysis of a new care pathway including a digital health platform for women at increased risk of preeclampsia

Antenatal cardiotocography in primary midwife-led care: a budget impact analysis

OBJECTIVES

In many countries, the healthcare sector is dealing with important challenges such as increased demand for healthcare services, capacity problems in hospitals and rising healthcare costs. Therefore, one of the aims of the Dutch government is to move care from in-hospital to out-of-hospital care settings. An example of an innovation where care is moved from a more specialised setting to a less specialised setting is the performance of an antenatal cardiotocography (aCTG) in primary midwife-led care. The aim of this study was to assess the budget impact of implementing aCTG for healthy pregnant women in midwife-led care compared with usual obstetrician-led care in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the actual costs and reimbursement of aCTG performed in midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care (ie, base-case analysis) from the Dutch healthcare perspective. Epidemiological and healthcare utilisation data describing both care pathways were obtained from a prospective cohort, survey and national databases. Different implementation rates of aCTG in midwife-led care were explored. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the budget impact estimates.

RESULTS

Shifting aCTG from obstetrician-led care to midwife-led-care would increase actual costs with €311 763 (97.5% CI €188 574 to €426 072) and €1 247 052 (97.5% CI €754 296 to €1 704 290) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively, while it would decrease reimbursement with -€7 538 335 (97.5% CI -€10 302 306 to -€4 559 661) and -€30 153 342 (97.5% CI -€41 209 225 to -€18 238 645) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with those of the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

From the Dutch healthcare perspective, we estimated that implementing aCTG in midwife-led care may increase the associated actual costs. At the same time, it might lower the healthcare reimbursement.

Detection and Control of Pregnancy Hypertension Using Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure With Automated Telemonitoring: Cost Analyses of the BUMP Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy hypertension continues to cause maternal and perinatal morbidity. Two linked UK randomized trials showed adding self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) with automated telemonitoring to usual antenatal care did not result in earlier detection or better control of pregnancy hypertension. This article reports the trials' integrated cost analyses.

METHODS

Two cost analyses. SMBP with usual care was compared with usual care alone in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (BUMP 1 trial [Blood Pressure Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancy to Improve the Detection and Monitoring of Hypertension], n=2441) and with hypertension (BUMP 2 trial, n=850). Clinical notes review identified participant-level antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care and these were costed. Comparisons between trial arms used means and 95% CIs. Within BUMP 2, chronic and gestational hypertension cohorts were analyzed separately. Telemonitoring system costs were reported separately.

RESULTS

In BUMP 1, mean (SE) total costs with SMBP and with usual care were £7200 (£323) and £7063 (£245), respectively, mean difference (95% CI), £151 (-£633 to £936). For the BUMP 2 chronic hypertension cohort, corresponding figures were £13 384 (£1230), £12 614 (£1081), mean difference £323 (-£2904 to £3549) and for the gestational hypertension cohort were £11 456 (£901), £11 145 (£959), mean difference £41 (-£2486 to £2567). The per-person cost of telemonitoring was £6 in BUMP 1 and £29 in BUMP 2.

CONCLUSIONS

SMBP was not associated with changes in the cost of health care contacts for individuals at risk of, or with, pregnancy hypertension. This is reassuring as SMBP in pregnancy is widely prevalent, particularly because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334149.

Creating a Telemedicine Network of Specialists in Maternal-Fetal Medicine: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Even before coronavirus disease 2019, integrating telemedicine into routine health care has become increasingly attractive. Evidence regarding the benefits of telemedicine in prenatal care is still inconclusive. As one of the largest sectors of preventive medicine with a relative paucity of specialists in maternal-fetal medicine (MFM), the implementation of telemedicine solutions into prenatal care is promising. Our objective aimed at establishing a telemedicine network of specialists in MFM for interprofessional exchange regarding high-risk pregnancies. Furthermore, the aims were to evaluate the providers' attitude toward the telemedicine solutions and to quantify the number of inpatient appointments that were avoided through interprofessional video consultations. Methods: This prospective trial was part of a larger telemedicine project funded by the European Regional Development Fund. MFM experts were brought together using the ELVI software. A questionnaire was designed for the evaluation of video consultations. The responses were analyzed by the exact McNemar-Bowker test to compare planned procedures before and after video consultation. Results: An interprofessional network of specialists in prenatal ultrasound was established with a total of 140 evaluations for statistical analysis. Interprofessional video communication was viewed favorably by providers. Overall, 47% (33/70) of the scheduled visits were avoided after video consultation. The providers' tendency to refrain from sending their patients to the University Hospital Münster was statistically noticeable (p = 0.048). Conclusions: Interprofessional exchange through video consultation holds great potential in the context of prenatal care. More prospective research is needed to clearly establish the most beneficial standard of care for both patients and providers. Clinical trial registration number: 2019-683-f-S.

Telehealth in antenatal care: recent insights and advances

BACKGROUND

For decades, antenatal care in high-resource settings has involved 12-14 face-to-face visits across pregnancy. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many care providers to rapidly embrace telehealth to reduce face-to-face visits. Here we review recent advances in telehealth used to provide antenatal care.

MAIN BODY

We conducted a narrative review examining the impact of telehealth on obstetric care. Two broad types of telehealth are used in antenatal care. The first is real-time telehealth, where consultations are done virtually instead of face-to-face. The second is remote monitoring, where in-clinic physical examinations are replaced with at-home alternatives. These can include blood pressure monitoring, fetal heart rate monitoring, and emerging technologies such as tele-ultrasound. Large cohort studies conducted during the pandemic era have shown that telehealth appears not to have increased adverse clinical outcomes for mothers or babies. However, further studies may be required to confidently conclude rare outcomes are unchanged, such as maternal mortality, serious morbidity, or stillbirth. Health economic studies suggest telehealth has the potential to reduce the financial cost of care provision. Telehealth in antenatal care seems to be acceptable to both pregnant women and healthcare providers.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of telehealth technologies may improve the antenatal care experience for women and reduce healthcare expenditure without adversely impacting health outcomes for the mother or baby. More studies are warranted to confirm telehealth does not alter the risk of rare outcomes such as maternal or neonatal mortality.

Clinical value and cost analysis of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in addition to the spot urine protein/creatinine ratio in women with suspected pre-eclampsia: PREPARE cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the clinical value of adding the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to the spot urine protein/creatinine ratio (PCr) in women with suspected pre-eclampsia.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study performed in a tertiary referral centre. Based on the combination of PCr (< 30) and sFlt-1/PlGF (≤38) results, four groups were described: a double negative result, group A-/-; a negative PCr and positive sFlt-1/PlGF, group B-/+; a positive PCr and negative sFlt-1/PlGF, group C+/-; and a double positive result, group D+/+. The primary outcome was the proportion of false negatives of the combined tests in comparison with PCr alone in the first week after baseline. Secondary, a cost analysis comparing the costs and savings of adding the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was performed for different follow-up scenarios.

RESULTS

A total of 199 women were included. Pre-eclampsia in the first week was observed in 2 women (2%) in group A-/-, 12 (26%) in group B-/+, 4 (27%) in group C+/-, and 12 (92%) in group D+/+. The proportion of false negatives of 8.2% [95% CI 4.9-13.3] with the PCr alone was significantly reduced to 1.6% [0.4-5.7] by adding a negative sFlt-1/PlGF ratio. Furthermore, the addition of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to the spot urine PCr, with telemonitoring of women at risk, could result in a reduction of 41% admissions and 36% outpatient visits, leading to a cost reduction of €46,- per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in addition to the spot urine PCr, may lead to improved selection of women at low risk and a reduction of hospital care for women with suspected pre-eclampsia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register (NL8308).

Enablers and barriers in upscaling telemonitoring across geographic boundaries: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Telemonitoring is a method to monitor a person's vital functions via their physiological data at distance, using technology. While pilot studies on the proposed benefits of telemonitoring show promising results, it appears challenging to implement telemonitoring on a larger scale. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the enablers and barriers for upscaling of telemonitoring across different settings and geographical boundaries in healthcare.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, ProQuest and IEEE databases were searched. Resulting outcomes were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were considered eligible if they focused on remote monitoring of patients' vital functions and data was transmitted digitally. Using scoping review methodology, selected studies were systematically assessed on their factors of influence on upscaling of telemonitoring.

RESULTS

A total of 2298 titles and abstracts were screened, and 19 articles were included for final analysis. This analysis revealed 89 relevant factors of influence: 26 were reported as enabler, 18 were reported as barrier and 45 factors were reported being both. The actual utilisation of telemonitoring varied widely across studies. The most frequently mentioned factors of influence are: resources such as costs or reimbursement, access or interface with electronic medical record and knowledge of frontline staff.

CONCLUSION

Successful upscaling of telemonitoring requires insight into its critical success factors, especially at an overarching national level. To future-proof and facilitate upscaling of telemonitoring, it is recommended to use this type of technology in usual care and to find means for reimbursement early on. A wide programme on change management, nationally or regionally coordinated, is key. Clear regulatory conditions and professional guidelines may further facilitate widespread adoption and use of telemonitoring. Future research should focus on converting the 'enablers and barriers' as identified by this review into a guideline supporting further nationwide upscaling of telemonitoring.

Diagnosis and Monitoring of White Coat Hypertension in Pregnancy: an ISSHP Consensus Delphi Procedure

BACKGROUND

There is no accepted definition or standardized monitoring for white coat hypertension in pregnancy. This Delphi procedure aimed to reach consensus on out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and white coat hypertension diagnostic criteria and monitoring.

METHOD

Relevant international experts completed three rounds of a modified Delphi questionnaire. For each item, the predefined cutoff for group consensus was ≥70% agreement, with 60% to 70% considered to warrant reconsideration at the subsequent round, and <60% considered insufficient to warrant consideration.

RESULTS

Of 230 experts, 137 completed the first round and 114 (114/137, 83.2%) completed all three. For out-of-office BP monitoring, there was consensus that home BP monitoring (HBPM) should be chosen; instructions given, pairs of BP values taken, opportunity given for women to qualify values they do not regard as valid, and BP considered evaluated when ≥25% of values are above a cutoff. For HBPM, BP should be taken at least 2 to 3 d/wk, at minimum in the morning; however, many factors may affect frequency and timing. Experts endorsed a clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg as normal. While not reaching consensus, most agreed that HBPM values should be lower than clinic BP. Among those, HBPM <135/85 mm Hg was considered normal. There was consensus that white coat hypertension warrants: HBPM at least 1 d/wk before 20 weeks, 2 to 3 d/wk after 20 weeks or if persistent hypertension develops, and symptom monitoring (ie, headache, visual symptoms, and right upper quadrant/epigastric pain).

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus-based diagnostic criteria and monitoring strategies should inform clinical care and research, to facilitate evaluation of out-of-office BP monitoring on pregnancy outcomes.