Linda Watson1,2, Siwei Qi1, Andrea Delure1, Claire Link1, Eclair Photitai1, Lindsi Chmielewski1, April Hildebrand1, Dean Ruether2,3, Krista Rawson4. 1. Applied Research and Patient Experience, Cancer Research and Analytics, Cancer Care Alberta-Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Medical Oncology, Cancer Care Alberta-Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Quality, Safety & Practice Integration, Cancer Care Alberta-Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study reports on a mixed methods evaluation conducted within a provincial cancer program in Alberta, Canada. The purpose was to capture key learnings from a rapid virtual care implementation because of the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand the impact on patient and staff experiences. METHODS: Administrative data were collected for 21,362 patients who had at least one virtual or in-person visit to any provincial cancer center from April 1, 2020, to June 10, 2020. Patient surveys were conducted with 397 randomly selected patients who had received a virtual visit. Surveys were also conducted with 396 Cancer Care Alberta staff. RESULTS: 14,906 virtual visits took place in this period, and about 40% of weekly visits were virtual. Significant differences were observed in both patient-reported symptom questionnaire completion rates and referrals to supportive care services between patients seen in-person and virtually. Patients receiving active treatments reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction with virtual visits than those seen for follow-up, but overall 90% of patients indicated interest in receiving virtual care in the future. Staff thought virtual visits increased patients' access to care but less than one third (31.5%) felt confident meeting patients' emotional needs and having conversations about disease progression and/or end of life virtually. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has driven the rapid implementation of virtual visits for cancer care delivery in health care settings. The findings from this mixed methods evaluation provide a concrete set of considerations for organizations looking to develop a large-scale, enduring virtual care strategy.
PURPOSE: This study reports on a mixed methods evaluation conducted within a provincial cancer program in Alberta, Canada. The purpose was to capture key learnings from a rapid virtual care implementation because of the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand the impact on patient and staff experiences. METHODS: Administrative data were collected for 21,362 patients who had at least one virtual or in-person visit to any provincial cancer center from April 1, 2020, to June 10, 2020. Patient surveys were conducted with 397 randomly selected patients who had received a virtual visit. Surveys were also conducted with 396 Cancer Care Alberta staff. RESULTS: 14,906 virtual visits took place in this period, and about 40% of weekly visits were virtual. Significant differences were observed in both patient-reported symptom questionnaire completion rates and referrals to supportive care services between patients seen in-person and virtually. Patients receiving active treatments reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction with virtual visits than those seen for follow-up, but overall 90% of patients indicated interest in receiving virtual care in the future. Staff thought virtual visits increased patients' access to care but less than one third (31.5%) felt confident meeting patients' emotional needs and having conversations about disease progression and/or end of life virtually. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has driven the rapid implementation of virtual visits for cancer care delivery in health care settings. The findings from this mixed methods evaluation provide a concrete set of considerations for organizations looking to develop a large-scale, enduring virtual care strategy.
Authors: Frank J Penedo; Laura B Oswald; Joshua P Kronenfeld; Sofia F Garcia; David Cella; Betina Yanez Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Raymond J Chan; Doris Howell; Maryam B Lustberg; Karen Mustian; Bogda Koczwara; Chiu Chin Ng; Yoon Kim; Anna María Nápoles; Niharika Dixit; Dori Klemanski; Yu Ke; Yi Long Toh; Margaret I Fitch; Megan Crichton; Sangeeta Agarawal; Alexandre Chan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Clemens Scott Kruse; Nicole Krowski; Blanca Rodriguez; Lan Tran; Jackeline Vela; Matthew Brooks Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Fiona Davies; Heather L Shepherd; Lisa Beatty; Brodie Clark; Phyllis Butow; Joanne Shaw Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sara E Shaw; Lucas Martinus Seuren; Joseph Wherton; Deborah Cameron; Christine A'Court; Shanti Vijayaraghavan; Joanne Morris; Satyajit Bhattacharya; Trisha Greenhalgh Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sara Izadi-Najafabadi; Lisa McQuarrie; Stuart Peacock; Ross Halperin; Leah Lambert; Craig Mitton; Helen McTaggart-Cowan Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Victoria White; Alice Bastable; Ilana Solo; Seleena Sherwell; Sangeetha Thomas; Rob Blum; Javier Torres; Natalie Maxwell-Davis; Kathy Alexander; Amanda Piper Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 3.359