Background: Telemedicine (interconsultation between primary and hospital care teams) has been operating in the counties of Central Catalonia Bages, Moianès and Berguedà since 2011 in the specialties of teledermatology, teleulcers, teleeyelids and teleaudiometries. For the period until the end of 2019, a total of 52,198 visits have been recorded. Objective: To analyse the differential costs between telemedicine and usual care in a semi-urban environment. Methodology: A cost-minimization evaluation, including direct and indirect costs from a societal perspective, distinguishing healthcare and user’s costs, within a three-month period. Results: Telemedicine saved € 780,397 over the period analysed. A differential cost favourable to telemedicine of about € 15/visit has been observed, the patient being the largest beneficiary of this saving (by 85%) in terms of shorter waiting times and travel costs. From the healthcare system perspective, moving the time spent in a hospital care consultation to primary care is efficient in terms of the total time devoted per patient. In social terms and in this context, telemedicine is more efficient than usual care. Conclusion: Users’ saving of time in terms of consultation and travel is the main driver of interconsultation between primary and hospital care savings in a semi-urban context. The telemedicine service is also economically favourable for the healthcare system, enabling it to provide a more agile service, which also benefits the healthcare professionals.

Background: The use of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters is growing due to their potential benefits. These devices can increase patient safety and satisfaction while reducing the use of resources. As a result, many hospitals are establishing vascular access specialist teams staffed by nurses who are trained in the insertion and maintenance of these catheters. Objective: Evaluate ex-ante whether the benefits of replacing peripheral venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters with ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters by a vascular access specialist team outweigh their costs. Methods: Cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the healthcare provider based on administrative data. The study estimates the reduction in resources used when replacing peripherally inserted central catheters, midline catheters and peripheral venous catheters with ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midlines, as well as the additional resources required for their use. Results: Each ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter replacing a peripherally inserted central catheter, results in a measurable resource reduction of approximately €31. When 3 peripheral venous catheters are replaced by an ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter, the saving is €63. Similarly, each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing a midline, results in a reduction of €16, while each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing 3 peripheral venous catheters results in a reduction of €96. Conclusion: The benefits of replacing peripheral venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters by introducing a vascular access specialist team trained in the implantation of ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters, outweigh its cost mainly because of the decrease in hospital stay due to the lowered risk of healthcare-associated infections. These results motivate the implementation of the service, adding to previous experience suggesting that it is also preferable from the point of view of patient safety and satisfaction.