Costly eICUs Get Results

Gienna Shaw, for HealthLeaders Media , October 12, 2010

Virtual ICUs got a bad rap: That's what early adopters of remote intensive care unit monitoring systems said in response to a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors of the JAMA study said they found "no association between implementation of telemedicine technology and adjusted hospital or ICU mortality, [length of stay], or complications." And, the authors noted, the systems are expensive, easily running to seven figures a year for software, hardware, two-way video and audio equipment, clinical salaries, and licensing fees.

But more recent evidence suggests that the technology could, in fact, be an antidote for the high cost of providing care in ICUs and other healthcare settings. Further, telemedicine advocates say, the programs can help alleviate the shortage of intensivists, improve access to care in remote or rural areas and across large systems with many hospitals, reduce mortality and length of stay, and even reduce ICU nurse turnover. 

For example, the three-hospital Lehigh Valley Health Network (LVHN) compared the outcomes of 954 patients who received care in the ICU for 16 months prior to its remote ICU launch and 959 who received care from intensivist physicians using the remote ICU. Mortality dropped from about 21% to nearly 15%. LVHN, located in Bethlehem and Allentown, PA, uses an advanced ICU system to monitor about 120 beds overnight.

LVHN's remote ICU, which includes an EMR, a computer-assisted physician order entry system, medication bar-coding, and a picture archiving and communication system, costs about $1.7 million a year—an expense that is not reimbursed. But LVHN leaders say that reduced mortality and length of stay as well as increased capacity to treat critical patients covers their costs.

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

2 comments on "Costly eICUs Get Results"

SH (10/14/2010 at 1:55 PM)
I would have to agree that numbers provided by individuals involved in the program are of solid basis. I am familiar with the program as well and the number shifting and crunching that goes on to get the numbers they want to see. All of these facilities that can show "cost savings" are unable to show it in hard figures with their budgets. Also, the eICU services are taking credit for all the decrease and not attributing those other things that are going on such as process improvement activities and additional regulatory requirements that have to be measured. I think that more independent review needs to be done.

Ken (10/13/2010 at 9:07 AM)
Does anyone find it surprising that in response to an independent study that refutes the value of an expensive technology installation, those who have invested tons of money in the technology will respond with their own studies, clearly not objective, that show the "value" of the acquisition? I am familiar with the technology, but not enough to make claims about it positive or negative. But at some point we need to start relying on sound, independent studies to make decisions on technology and practice or we will never climb out of our financial hole.




FREE e-Newsletters Join the Council Subscribe to HL magazine


100 Winners Circle Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027


About | Advertise | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Reprints/Permissions | Contact
© HealthLeaders Media 2016 a division of BLR All rights reserved.