BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined. RESULTS: In total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician's explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14-5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00-4.77; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient-oncologist communication.
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined. RESULTS: In total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician's explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14-5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00-4.77; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient-oncologist communication.
Authors: Chun Chieh Lin; Suanna S Bruinooge; M Kelsey Kirkwood; Dawn L Hershman; Ahmedin Jemal; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; James B Yu; Shane Hopkins; Michael Goldstein; Dean Bajorin; Sharon H Giordano; Michael Kosty; Anna Arnone; Amy Hanley; Stephanie Stevens; Christine Olsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lennard Yw Lee; Jean-Baptiste Cazier; Vasileios Angelis; Roland Arnold; Vartika Bisht; Naomi A Campton; Julia Chackathayil; Vinton Wt Cheng; Helen M Curley; Matthew W Fittall; Luke Freeman-Mills; Spyridon Gennatas; Anshita Goel; Simon Hartley; Daniel J Hughes; David Kerr; Alvin Jx Lee; Rebecca J Lee; Sophie E McGrath; Christopher P Middleton; Nirupa Murugaesu; Thomas Newsom-Davis; Alicia Fc Okines; Anna C Olsson-Brown; Claire Palles; Yi Pan; Ruth Pettengell; Thomas Powles; Emily A Protheroe; Karin Purshouse; Archana Sharma-Oates; Shivan Sivakumar; Ashley J Smith; Thomas Starkey; Chris D Turnbull; Csilla Várnai; Nadia Yousaf; Rachel Kerr; Gary Middleton Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Luo; H Rizvi; I R Preeshagul; J V Egger; D Hoyos; C Bandlamudi; C G McCarthy; C J Falcon; A J Schoenfeld; K C Arbour; J E Chaft; R M Daly; A Drilon; J Eng; A Iqbal; W V Lai; B T Li; P Lito; A Namakydoust; K Ng; M Offin; P K Paik; G J Riely; C M Rudin; H A Yu; M G Zauderer; M T A Donoghue; M Łuksza; B D Greenbaum; M G Kris; M D Hellmann Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 51.769
Authors: Elad Neeman; Liisa Lyon; Hongxin Sun; Carol Conell; Mary Reed; Deepika Kumar; Tatjana Kolevska; Dinesh Kotak; Tilak Sundaresan; Raymond Liu Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-03
Authors: Samantha R Paige; Gemme Campbell-Salome; Jordan Alpert; Merry Jennifer Markham; Martina Murphy; Eve Heffron; Chris Harle; Sijia Yue; Wei Xue; Carma L Bylund Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Paolo A Ascierto; Allison Betof Warner; Christian Blank; Corrado Caracò; Sandra Demaria; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Nikhil I Khushalani; Georgina V Long; Jason J Luke; Janice M Mehnert; Caroline Robert; Piotr Rutkowski; Hussein A Tawbi; Iman Osman; Igor Puzanov Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 8.440
Authors: Alexander S Qian; Melody K Schiaffino; Vinit Nalawade; Lara Aziz; Fernanda V Pacheco; Bao Nguyen; Peter Vu; Sandip P Patel; Maria Elena Martinez; James D Murphy Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Kaitlyn Lapen; Christopher Sabol; Amy L Tin; Kathleen Lynch; Alyse Kassa; Xiaolin Mabli; John Ford; Elaine Cha; Michael B Bernstein; Lior Z Braunstein; Oren Cahlon; Bobby M Daly; Kiri Sandler; Susan A McCloskey; Andrew J Vickers; Atif J Khan; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 7.038