Amye J Tevaarwerk1,2, Thevaa Chandereng3, Travis Osterman4, Waddah Arafat5, Jeffrey Smerage6, Fernanda C G Polubriaginof7, Tricia Heinrichs8, Jessica Sugalski8, Daniel B Martin9. 1. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 2. Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI. 3. Columbia University, New York, NY. 4. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN. 5. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 6. Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor, MI. 7. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, PA. 9. University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of telemedicine expanded dramatically in March 2020 following the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to assess oncologist perspectives on telemedicine's present and future roles (both phone and video) for patients with cancer. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Electronic Health Record (EHR) Oncology Advisory Group formed a Workgroup to assess the state of oncology telemedicine and created a 20-question survey. NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group members e-mailed the survey to providers (surgical, hematology, gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology physicians and clinicians) at their home institution. RESULTS: Providers (N = 1,038) from 26 institutions responded in Summer 2020. Telemedicine (phone and video) was compared with in-person visits across clinical scenarios (n = 766). For reviewing benign follow-up data, 88% reported video and 80% reported telephone were the same as or better than office visits. For establishing a personal connection with patients, 24% and 7% indicated video and telephone, respectively, were the same as or better than office visits. Ninety-three percent reported adverse outcomes attributable to telemedicine visits never or rarely occurred, whereas 6% indicated they occasionally occurred (n = 801). Respondents (n = 796) estimated 46% of postpandemic visits could be virtual, but challenges included (1) lack of patient access to technology, (2) inadequate clinical workflows to support telemedicine, and (3) insurance coverage uncertainty postpandemic. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine appears effective across a variety of clinical scenarios. Based on provider assessment, a substantial fraction of visits for patients with cancer could be effectively and safely conducted using telemedicine. These findings should influence regulatory and infrastructural decisions regarding telemedicine postpandemic for patients with cancer.
PURPOSE: The use of telemedicine expanded dramatically in March 2020 following the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to assess oncologist perspectives on telemedicine's present and future roles (both phone and video) for patients with cancer. METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Electronic Health Record (EHR) Oncology Advisory Group formed a Workgroup to assess the state of oncology telemedicine and created a 20-question survey. NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group members e-mailed the survey to providers (surgical, hematology, gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology physicians and clinicians) at their home institution. RESULTS: Providers (N = 1,038) from 26 institutions responded in Summer 2020. Telemedicine (phone and video) was compared with in-person visits across clinical scenarios (n = 766). For reviewing benign follow-up data, 88% reported video and 80% reported telephone were the same as or better than office visits. For establishing a personal connection with patients, 24% and 7% indicated video and telephone, respectively, were the same as or better than office visits. Ninety-three percent reported adverse outcomes attributable to telemedicine visits never or rarely occurred, whereas 6% indicated they occasionally occurred (n = 801). Respondents (n = 796) estimated 46% of postpandemic visits could be virtual, but challenges included (1) lack of patient access to technology, (2) inadequate clinical workflows to support telemedicine, and (3) insurance coverage uncertainty postpandemic. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine appears effective across a variety of clinical scenarios. Based on provider assessment, a substantial fraction of visits for patients with cancer could be effectively and safely conducted using telemedicine. These findings should influence regulatory and infrastructural decisions regarding telemedicine postpandemic for patients with cancer.
Authors: Brian De; Shuangshuang Fu; Ying-Shiuan Chen; Prajnan Das; Kimberly Ku; Sean Maroongroge; Kristina D Woodhouse; Karen E Hoffman; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Valerie K Reed; Aileen B Chen; Albert C Koong; Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: Michael J Wagner; Cassandra Hennessy; Alicia Beeghly; Benjamin French; Dimpy P Shah; Sarah Croessmann; Diana Vilar-Compte; Erika Ruiz-Garcia; Matthew Ingham; Gary K Schwartz; Corrie A Painter; Rashmi Chugh; Leslie Fecher; Cathleen Park; Olga Zamulko; Jonathan C Trent; Vivek Subbiah; Ali Raza Khaki; Lisa Tachiki; Elizabeth S Nakasone; Elizabeth T Loggers; Chris Labaki; Renee Maria Saliby; Rana R McKay; Archana Ajmera; Elizabeth A Griffiths; Igor Puzanov; William D Tap; Clara Hwang; Sheela Tejwani; Sachin R Jhawar; Brandon Hayes-Lattin; Elizabeth Wulff-Burchfield; Anup Kasi; Daniel Y Reuben; Gayathri Nagaraj; Monika Joshi; Hyma Polimera; Amit A Kulkarni; Khashayar Esfahani; Daniel H Kwon; Luca Paoluzzi; Mehmet A Bilen; Eric B Durbin; Petros Grivas; Jeremy L Warner; Elizabeth J Davis Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 6.575