Introduction Recruitment of advanced-practice physiotherapists to regional and rural healthcare facilities in Queensland, Australia remains a challenge. To overcome this barrier, two different service delivery models (Fly-In, Fly-Out (FIFO), Telehealth) were trialled by one regional facility. This study aims to describe the economic- and service-related outcomes of these two methods of service delivery. Methods A retrospective audit was conducted where two nine-week time periods were selected for each service delivery model. Outcomes of interests include patient demographics and case-mix, service utilisation, clinical actions, adverse events and costs. Net financial position for both models was calculated based upon costs incurred and revenue generated by service activity. Results A total of 33 appointment slots were recorded for each service delivery model. Patient case-mix was variable, where the Telehealth model predominately involved patients with musculoskeletal spinal conditions managed from a neurosurgical waiting list. Appointment slot utilisation and pattern of referral for further investigations were similar between models. No safety incidents occurred in either service delivery model. An estimated cost-savings of 13% for the Telehealth model could be achieved when compared to the FIFO model. Discussion Telehealth is a safe, efficient and viable option when compared to a traditional in-person outreach service, while providing cost-savings. Telehealth should be seen as a service delivery medium in which sustainable recruitment of advanced-practice physiotherapists to regional and rural healthcare facilities can be achieved.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.