Urban E-Health Project in Rio de Janeiro

241
-1

Published on

This is the pilot project of using ICTs to help people from the under-served areas in the world.

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
241
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Urban E-Health Project in Rio de Janeiro

  1. 1. URBAN E-HEALTH PROJECTSanta Marta Community, Rio de Janiero
  2. 2. BACKGROUND
  3. 3. BACKGROUND • Low and middle-income countries are urbanizing rapidly • More processed foods, less exercise • Shift from communicable disease to non-communicable diseases • Communicable Diseases • Malaria, TB, Hepatitis • Non-Communicable Diseases ( Chronic ) • Long duration and not passed from individual to individual • Cardiovascular, Cancer, Respiratory Diseases, and Diabetes • In 2007, 72% of deaths in Brazil
  4. 4. STATISTICS • 1980 – 2008, 10-year increase in life expectancy of every baby • At 2050, life expectancy of every baby in Brazil is 81 • In 2005, 15% of Brazil’s population were 65 years old and older • At 2050, they would be 55% of Brazil’s population • Higher demand for health services
  5. 5. WHY RIO DE JANIERO? 1. A rapid-aging population • Highest ratio of elderly population 2. Changing dietary habits • Obesity also targeting the poor • Chronic diseases on poor neighborhoods 3. Public heath-care that are adjusting 4. Rise of real-estate prices • For new hospitals 5. Prevalence of underprivileged urban areas • 22% or 1.4 Million, Little or no access to healthcare
  6. 6. WHY SANTA MARTA? • Transportation is a problem • Slow and overcrowded cable car • Nearest public hospital, 6 km from Sta. Marta 1. Pacification Program • To reduce high level of violence and crime 2. Saude Presente ( 2009 ) • Expand health services to remote areas • Currently, Santa Marta’s Family Clinic • 1 doctor, 1 nurse, 1 nurse technician, 2 oral health teams, 6 community heath agents ( INFOMEDIARIES )
  7. 7. SCOPE
  8. 8. SCOPE • The Pilot Program • Portable e-health kit for Santa Marta’s Family Clinic • Measurements of blood pressure, glucose level, quickly and efficiently • Backpack can be transported easily • Can e-health technology reduce the cost of healthcare in a previously underserved community? • Does e-health technology help overcome barriers to healthcare in this type of community?
  9. 9. SCOPE • Directly addresses the gap in access to public services • Accelerates the process of health care
  10. 10. OBJECTIVES
  11. 11. OBJECTIVES 1. Address current and future health challenges affecting major emerging cities 2. Tackle the economic, social and physical barriers to healthcare for underserved communities 3. Develop a new economic model of healthcare
  12. 12. TASK FORCE MEMBERS
  13. 13. TASK FORCE MEMBERS • The Pilot Project 1. City of Rio de Janeiro 2. Support of the Municipal Secretary of Health 3. GE • Founding member of the New Cities Foundation • Technology, strategic and financial support 4. Cisco 5. Department of Clinical Medicine at the State University of Rio • Independent research team
  14. 14. TARGET POPULATION
  15. 15. TARGET POPULATION • Elderly inhabitants of Santa Marta 1. Quality of Life 2. Good Nutrition 3. Physical Exercise 4. Rehabilitation • 100 patients over the age of 60 • Data collection: 7 months • August 2012 – March 2013
  16. 16. E-HEALTH BACKPACK
  17. 17. E-HEALTH BACKPACK • Problem • No equipment for blood analysis • Chronic diseases cannot be detected • Solution : E-Health Backpack • Detect an average of 20 diseases in minutes • Nurses can perform in-home visits • Cost : USD $42,000 or Php 19 000 000.00
  18. 18. E-HEALTH BACKPACK V-Scan • Pocket-sized ultrasound device for obstetric, abdominal and heart tests
  19. 19. E-HEALTH BACKPACK Tuffsat pulse Oxymeter • Blood oxygenation and heart rate
  20. 20. E-HEALTH BACKPACK Electrocardiogram • Electrical activity of the heart Picture taken from : sanwinmed.pp.alibaba.com
  21. 21. E-HEALTH BACKPACK Accutrend blood monitor • Monitors glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides level
  22. 22. E-HEALTH BACKPACK Tapemeasure
  23. 23. E-HEALTH BACKPACK Scale • Assess bioimpedance, weight, fat, and hydration • Bioimpedance – response to external electric current ( blood flow, fat content )
  24. 24. E-HEALTH BACKPACK Blood pressure monitor
  25. 25. E-HEALTH BACKPACK Thermometer
  26. 26. TRAININGAND OUTREACH
  27. 27. TRAINING AND OUTREACH • The Team • 4 Doctors • 1 Nurse manager • 3 Nurses • 3 Nurse technicians • Doctors • Trained to use the V-Scan • Interpreting data collected from the backpack
  28. 28. TRAINING AND OUTREACH
  29. 29. DATA COLLECTION
  30. 30. DATA COLLECTION • 30 weeks of Data Collection • 200 visits with backpack • 6.6 visits per week • To diversify the data pool, the study included: • Pregnant women • Patients under 60 • Patients with disabilities
  31. 31. DATA COLLECTION
  32. 32. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  33. 33. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. Is e-health cost effective from the public healthcare perspective? • Economic Benefits • Based on the avoided hospitalizations • If patients condition can be prevented from advancing to the next stage • Avoided clinical outcomes
  34. 34. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2. Does the pilot improve access to healthcare services for underserved populations? • Clinical Impact • Patients in the pilot VS a control group • Difference in healthcare costs
  35. 35. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3. What is the end-user experience? • End-user Satisfaction • Patient’s and clinical staff’s satisfaction with the backpack • A questionnaire was used to survey the users
  36. 36. RESULTS
  37. 37. RESULTS Economic Impact • Significant positive impact • In-home visits were enhanced with the E-heath Backpacks • Early detection of chronic diseases • USD $200,000 per 100 patients per year • Decrease severity of cardiovascular illness • Reduction of 360 hospitalizations per 1000 patients • USD $135,876 per 1000 patients per year
  38. 38. RESULTS Clinical Impact • Lower prevalence of clinical conditions VS historical control groups
  39. 39. RESULTS Social Impact • Majority of the patients and health workers : POSITIVE • Reduction in time for medical results
  40. 40. RESULTS Terrible Poor Neutral Good Excellent Not Evaluated
  41. 41. RESULTS Terrible Poor Neutral Good Excellent Not Evaluated
  42. 42. RESULTS Terrible Poor Neutral Good Excellent Not Evaluated
  43. 43. CHALLENGES
  44. 44. CHALLENGES 1. Delays • Authorization process • Completion of the E-Health kit 2. Technical • Need for a medical specialist to interpret images 3. Process • Breaking the routine, using the backpack 4. Data Collection • Slow at the early stage because of the 3 previous challenges
  45. 45. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
  46. 46. CONCLUSIONS
  47. 47. CONCLUSIONS 1. E-Health kit benefits the patients as well as the healthcare professionals 2. Morbidity reduced for chronic disease suffering patients 3. The e-health project is worth the investment 4. High tech innovations can be used to improve healthcare in underserved communities
  48. 48. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. From m-health to e-health • Full potential of the backpack should be utilized • Use wireless technology within the backpack 2. Expand the type and location of patients • Other communities with fewer health services 3. Extend the analysis of measurements taken • Cost saved for patients ( fare, etc. ) • Carbon emissions reduced • Add another team member : social scientist
  49. 49. SOURCE New Cities Foundation (2013), An Urban E-Health Project in Rio, [online] Available: http://www.newcitiesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/Research/New-Cities- Foundation-E-HealthFull-Report.pdf
  50. 50. END
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×