ArticlemHealth2020
Understanding the cost savings of video visits in outpatient surgical clinics.
Article in mHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telemedicine-enabled surveillance after hernia repair: A prospective programmatic experience.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Cost4Visit: a cross-sectional cohort study on hidden costs among surgical patients and relatives for in-person and video visits.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluation of Novel Models of Care for Patients With Acute Medical Problems.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Novel approaches to redesign surveillance strategies following orchiectomy for localized testicular cancer: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- Evolving teledermatology policy and reimbursement landscape in the United States.JAAD international · 2023Article
- Testosterone replacement therapy in the era of telemedicine.International journal of impotence research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpansion of telehealth is a high-priority strategic initiative for many health systems. Surgical clinics' implementation of video visits has been identified as a way to improve patient and provider experience. However, whether using video visits can reduce the cost of an outpatient visit is unknown.
methodsProspective case study using time-driven activity-based costing at two outpatient surgical clinics at an academic institution. We conducted stakeholder interviews and in-person observations to map outpatient clinic flow and measure resource utilization of four key steps: check-in, vitals collection and rooming, clinician encounter, and check-out. Finally, we calculated the resource cost for each step using representative salary information to calculate total visit cost.
resultsVideo visits did not systematically reduce the amount of time clinicians spent with patients. Mean [standard deviation (SD)] visit costs were as follows: traditional clinic visits, $26.84 ($10.13); physician-led video visits, $27.26 ($9.69); and physician assistant-led video visits, $9.86 ($2.76). There was no significant difference in the total cost associated with physician-led traditional clinic visits and video visits (P=0.89). However, physician assistant-led video visits were significantly lower cost than physician-led video visits (P<0.001).
conclusionsUsing physician-led video visits does not reduce the cost of outpatient surgical visits when compared to traditional clinic visits. However, the use of less expensive clinician resources for video visits (e.g., physician-assistants) may yield cost savings for clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.