Virtual emergency care was cost-effective across 13 studies, with transfer avoidance driving savings
AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.
Brief summary
A systematic review of 13 economic evaluations found consistently favorable cost-effectiveness for virtual emergency care, with avoided patient transfers as the main savings mechanism, particularly in rural and remote settings.
What NurseJet pulled from the source
The review covered video consultation and other virtual emergency models in six countries. Six studies found virtual care both less costly and more effective, and reported transfer reductions ranged from 31% to 73%; however, interventions, settings, and economic methods varied, and certainty was low for emergency-department length of stay and mortality outcomes.
Why this matters for nurses
Emergency nurses coordinate triage, remote assessment, transfer preparation, monitoring, and handoff across virtual-care pathways. The review suggests these models can improve access and conserve transfer resources, but implementation quality depends on clear escalation criteria, reliable technology, and tracking both safety and equity.
Bedside takeaway
Use virtual emergency care through a defined triage, reassessment, escalation, transfer, documentation, and technology-backup pathway.
How This Applies in Practice
Use this when: Using or evaluating an approved virtual emergency consultation pathway, especially for a rural or transfer-dependent setting.
On your shift
- Confirm eligibility, responsible clinicians, communication method, reassessment frequency, escalation triggers, and the backup process for technology failure.
- Document the remote assessment, disposition, patient and caregiver understanding, and any access, language, privacy, or connectivity barrier.
- Track transfer avoidance alongside delays, escalations, adverse events, repeat visits, and equity measures when evaluating the pathway.
Key takeaways
- Thirteen studies from six countries met criteria for full economic evaluations of virtual versus usual emergency care.
- Video consultation was the most common model, appearing in 11 of the 13 studies.
- Six studies found virtual care dominant, meaning less costly and more effective within their evaluated setting.
- Transfer avoidance drove much of the economic benefit, while evidence for length of stay and mortality remained low certainty.
Practice implications
- When using an approved virtual emergency pathway, document the remote clinician, assessment, communication, disposition, and escalation criteria. Reassess during any wait, confirm transfer readiness when needed, and report technology or access barriers that delay care.
Limitations & cautions
- Only 13 heterogeneous economic evaluations were included, settings and modalities differed, and the review used narrative rather than pooled economic synthesis. The results may not transfer to health systems with different staffing, technology, geography, and transfer costs, and evidence certainty was low for emergency-department length of stay and mortality.
- AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.
Citations
Exact source links
Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.
JMIR mHealth and uHealth (PubMed)
JMIR mHealth and uHealth (PubMed). Cost-Effectiveness of Virtual Emergency Care Models: Systematic Review.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42555953/
Professional education only
