1 / 23

Al Glasgow, MBA, MS

Telemedicine in the Gulf. L o c a t I n g T e l e m e d I c I n e S I t e s I n t h e G u l f o f M e x I c o. Al Glasgow, MBA, MS

hastin
Télécharger la présentation

Al Glasgow, MBA, MS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Telemedicine in the Gulf L o c a t I n g T e l e m e d I c I n e S I t e s I n t h e G u l f o f M e x I c o Al Glasgow, MBA, MS Department of Health Informatics, University Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas, Houston, TX Department of Geographic Information Science, Houston Community College, Houston, TX

  2. What is telemedicine? The use of electronic information and communication technology to provide supportive health care when distance separates participants. Institute of Medicine

  3. TELEMEDICINE BENEFITS • Improves survival rate • Improves care outcomes w/lower cost of care • Immediate response • Expands geographic coverage • Reduces operating costs (mainly transportation) • Patient satisfaction = worker retention FASTER -- BETTER -- CHEAPER

  4. INVESTIGATION PURPOSE To utilize GIS in developing a model for collection and analysis of large amounts of patient population data and to effectively communicate findings as part of the needs assessment process for planning telemedicine services in the Gulf.

  5. GOALS • Improve Patient Care Outcomes • Ensure timely access to health care • Project specialist care to remote locations • Improve Health Care Delivery Productivity • Minimize MEDEVAC’s • Increase worker satisfaction • Utilize GIS in Needs Assessment Process • Identify optimal strategiesfor TM deployment

  6. STRATEGY • Evaluate effectiveness (MEDEVAC Avoidance) • Assess “fit” of initial program for expanded operation with more distant patients and propose alternate solutions.

  7. BACKGROUND 20,000 Individuals engaged in high risk activities, mainly oil and gas related Technology advances • High speed & volume fiber optic network = 15% to 25% operating cost reduction • Advanced seismic technology = increased drilling activity, especially in more distant deepwater • Telemedicine’s fit with economic and health care objectives

  8. METHODS • Collect data on target population (Site numbers, sizes, spatial relationships) • Determine cost savings and number of MEDEVAC’s to breakeven • Develop strategies for sites beyond initial coverage area (beyond 50 miles)

  9. TM ASSUMPTIONS Equipment Costs TM unit costs (Lease/mon./unit) $ 500 Operating Costs Training (Trainee/year) $ 500 Equip. maintenance (In lease) $ -0- MEDEVAC Costs ($/Mile) $ 150 MEDEVAC Costs ($/Case) $5,000 * Consult cost (Per case) $ 75 Return HELO trip $2,000 Credits - Avg. wage ($/Hr.) $71.69 Manhrs./MEDEVAC saved 8.0 ** Other Assumptions MEDEVAC reduction w/TM 30% * $3000 flat fee for trips <2.5 hrs. Rate for >2.5 hour trips is $1200/hr. ** One 8-hour day recovered per MEDEVAC avoidance.

  10. COST SAVINGS ANALYSIS(Sites Within 50 Miles) B/E

  11. SITE LOCATION DISTRIBUTION

  12. 76% SITE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

  13. PATIENT DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY 72% of population within 100 to 200 miles 76% of population on <=15 member crews A widely distributed population beyond 50 miles (Mostly beyond 100 miles).

  14. UTMB HUB & SPOKE NETWORK

  15. NEXT STEPS Determine optimal hub site(s) • Time and cost minimization for maximum # of patients • Model demand for services based on analysis of risk • Identify sites that can accommodate TM facility • Consider phasing options

  16. CONCLUSIONS Care Outcomes Improvement • Quicker response, farther reach and projection of specialty care TM Effectiveness • Substantial cost savings • Patient satisfaction = worker retention GIS Value • Visualization of demand factors to guide deployment and site selection process

  17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Kim Dunn, MD, PhD (1) Osborne Nye, PhD (2) Fardosht Armirphanihi (2) Anna Zachos (3) (1) Department of Health Informatics, School of Health Information Sciences, Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas, Houston, TX (2) Department of Geographic Information Science, Houston Community College, Houston, TX (3) School of Public Health, University of Texas, Houston, TX

More Related