PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced rapid adoption of telemedicine (TM) for breast oncology visits in the United States, but the appropriate role of postpandemic TM is uncertain. We sought to understand physician and advance practice practitioner perspectives on the use of TM for outpatient breast cancer care through an electronically administered survey. METHODS: Breast medical oncology clinicians at two academic cancer centers and five satellite locations affiliated with the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and the Massachusetts General Cancer Center were invited to respond to a 21-question survey administered in September 2021 about clinicians' perceptions and attitudes toward TM during the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 71 survey invitations, 51 clinicians (36 physicians and 15 advance practice practitioners) provided survey responses (response rate = 72%). Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 47) agreed that TM visits enhance patient care. Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 46) also agreed that TM is valuable for early-stage breast cancer follow-up visits. Most respondents felt that there was no difference between TM and face-to-face (F2F) visits when it came to patient adherence, ease of ordering tests, ease of accessing patient records, and workflow outside of the visit (82%, 82%, 78%, and 53%, respectively). Fifty-one percent of respondents (n = 26) said that TM was better for timely access to follow-up appointments. Most respondents said that F2F visits were better for seeing physical problems, personal connection with patients, overall quality of visits, and patient-physician communication (100%, 75%, 65%, and 63%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Breast clinicians believe that TM is a valuable tool to enhance outpatient breast cancer care. TM was felt to be appropriate for routine follow-up visits and second opinion consultations and is as good as or better than F2F visits for several routine aspects of breast cancer care.
PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced rapid adoption of telemedicine (TM) for breast oncology visits in the United States, but the appropriate role of postpandemic TM is uncertain. We sought to understand physician and advance practice practitioner perspectives on the use of TM for outpatient breast cancer care through an electronically administered survey. METHODS: Breast medical oncology clinicians at two academic cancer centers and five satellite locations affiliated with the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and the Massachusetts General Cancer Center were invited to respond to a 21-question survey administered in September 2021 about clinicians' perceptions and attitudes toward TM during the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 71 survey invitations, 51 clinicians (36 physicians and 15 advance practice practitioners) provided survey responses (response rate = 72%). Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 47) agreed that TM visits enhance patient care. Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 46) also agreed that TM is valuable for early-stage breast cancer follow-up visits. Most respondents felt that there was no difference between TM and face-to-face (F2F) visits when it came to patient adherence, ease of ordering tests, ease of accessing patient records, and workflow outside of the visit (82%, 82%, 78%, and 53%, respectively). Fifty-one percent of respondents (n = 26) said that TM was better for timely access to follow-up appointments. Most respondents said that F2F visits were better for seeing physical problems, personal connection with patients, overall quality of visits, and patient-physician communication (100%, 75%, 65%, and 63%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Breast clinicians believe that TM is a valuable tool to enhance outpatient breast cancer care. TM was felt to be appropriate for routine follow-up visits and second opinion consultations and is as good as or better than F2F visits for several routine aspects of breast cancer care.
Authors: Akash Sharma; Nguyen Tran Minh Duc; Tai Luu Lam Thang; Nguyen Hai Nam; Sze Jia Ng; Kirellos Said Abbas; Nguyen Tien Huy; Ana Marušić; Christine L Paul; Janette Kwok; Juntra Karbwang; Chiara de Waure; Frances J Drummond; Yoshiyuki Kizawa; Erik Taal; Joeri Vermeulen; Gillian H M Lee; Adam Gyedu; Kien Gia To; Martin L Verra; Évelyne M Jacqz-Aigrain; Wouter K G Leclercq; Simo T Salminen; Cathy Donald Sherbourne; Barbara Mintzes; Sergi Lozano; Ulrich S Tran; Mitsuaki Matsui; Mohammad Karamouzian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 6.473
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: Arianna Heyer; Rachel E Granberg; Kristin L Rising; Adam F Binder; Alexzandra T Gentsch; Nathan R Handley Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Bryan A Johnson; Bruce R Lindgren; Anne H Blaes; Helen M Parsons; Christopher J LaRocca; Ronda Farah; Jane Yuet Ching Hui Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 5.344