Fighting health inequalities is a challenge addressed by the United Nations Strategic Development Goals (UN-SDGs). Particularly, people living in rural areas suffer from a lack of health infrastructure, which would jeopardize their inclusion in universal coverage for specialist care. Delivering valuable healthcare in underserved areas can be achieved through the employment of new technical innovations, such as telemedicine, which improves service delivery processes. Accordingly, this paper discusses how telemedicine strategies have enhanced the sustainability of right of “access to healthcare” in rural areas. Once we derived the sustainability pillars for healthcare from the UN-SDGs 3 and 10 according to the WHO innovation assessment metrics, a PRISMA-based literature review was conducted using the Scopus database. English, peer-reviewed articles/reviews from 1973 to 2019 were considered. The enquiry covers two analyses: (i) quantitative-bibliometric on 2267 papers; and (ii) qualitative-narrative on the 30 most significant papers. Interest about the topic has increased in the last decade following digitalization diffusion. The most productive and collaborative countries are those with huge dimensions and under financial restrictions. From a sustainability-oriented standpoint, telemedicine enhances both emergency and diagnostic healthcare in rural areas by decreasing the cost of services, expanding coverage of specialist cares, and increasing the quality of the outcomes. For health policies, telemedicine can be considered a suitable solution for providing cost-effective and sustainable healthcare.

The emphasis on value-based payment models for primary total hip replacement (THA) results in a greater need for orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to better understand actual costs and resource use. Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) is an innovative approach to measure expenses more accurately and address cost challenges. It estimates the quantity of time and the cost per unit of time of each resource (e.g., equipment and personnel) used across an episode of care. Our goal is to understand the true cost of a THA using the TDABC in an Italian public hospital and to comprehend how the adoption of this method might enhance the process of providing healthcare from an organizational and financial standpoint. During 2019, the main activities required for total hip replacement surgery, the operators involved, and the intraoperative consumables were identified. A process map was produced to identify the patient’s concrete path during hospitalization and the length of stay was also recorded. The total inpatient cost of THA, net of all indirect costs normally included in a DRG-based reimbursement, was about EUR 6000. The observation of a total of 90 patients identified 2 main expense items: the prosthetic device alone represents 50.4% of the total cost, followed by the hospitalization, which constitutes 41.5%. TDABC has proven to be a precise method for determining the cost of the healthcare delivery process for THA, considering facilities, equipment, and staff employed. The process map made it possible to identify waste and redundancies. Surgeons should be aware that the choice of prosthetic device and that a lack of pre-planning for discharge can exponentially alter the hospital expenditure for a patient undergoing primary THA.

In the healthcare field, the decision-making process is part of the broad spectrum of “clinical reasoning”, which is recognised as the whole process by which a physician decides about patients’ treatments and cares. Several clinicians’ intrinsic variables lead to this decisional path. Little is known about the inference of these variables in triggering biases in decisions about the post-discharge period in the surgical field. Accordingly, this research aims to understand if and how cognitive biases can affect orthopaedists in decision-making regarding the follow-up after knee and hip arthroplasty. To achieve this goal, an interview-based explorative case study was run. Three key-decisional orthopaedic surgeons were interviewed through a quality control tool aimed at monitoring the causes and effects of cognitive distortions. Coherently with the literature, eight biases come to light. All the interviewees agree on the presence of four common biases in orthopaedic surgery (Affect heuristic, Anchoring, Halo effect, Saliency). The other biases (Groupthink, Availability, Overconfidence, Confirmation), instead, depending on specific physicians’ intrinsic variables; namely: (i) working experience; (ii) working context. This finding contributes to the debate about the application of cognitive tools as leverage for improving the quality of clinical decision-making process and, indirectly, enhancing better healthcare outcomes.