Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Adv Radiat Oncol ; : 101005, 2022 Oct 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2270952

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Telemedicine enthusiasm and uptake in radiation oncology rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear if and how telemedicine should be used after the COVID-19 public health emergency ends is unclear. Herein, we report on our institution's provider experience after the mature adoption of telemedicine. Methods and Materials: We distributed a survey to all radiation oncology attending physicians at our institution in October 2021 to assess satisfaction, facilitators, and barriers to telemedicine implementation. We performed quantitative and qualitative analyses to characterize satisfaction and identify influencing factors whether telemedicine is employed. We calculated the average proportion of visits that providers expected to be appropriately performed with telemedicine for each disease site and visit type. Results: A total of 60 of the 82 eligible radiation oncologists (73%) responded to the survey, of whom 78% were satisfied with telemedicine in the radiation oncology department and 83% wished to continue offering video visits after the COVID-19 public health emergency ends. Common patient factors influencing whether physicians offer telemedicine include the patient's travel burden, patient preferences, and whether a physical examination is required. Approximately 20% of new consultations and 50% of weekly management visits were estimated to be appropriate for telemedicine. The central nervous system/pediatrics and thoracic faculty considered telemedicine appropriate for the greatest proportion of new consultations, and 93% of respondents felt comfortable determining whether telemedicine was appropriate. Conclusions: Surveyed radiation oncologists were satisfied with telemedicine in their practice, and wished to continue offering video visits in the future. Our data suggest that payers should continue to support this patient-centered technology.

2.
Adv Radiat Oncol ; 5(4): 567-572, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-829357

ABSTRACT

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, minimizing exposure risk for patients with cancer and health care personnel was of utmost importance. Here, we present steps taken to date to flatten the curve at the radiation oncology division of a tertiary cancer center with the goal of mitigating risk of exposure among patients and staff, and optimizing resource utilization. Response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in this large tertiary referral center included volume reduction, personal protective equipment recommendations, flexible clinic visit interaction types dictated by need and risk reduction, and numerous social distancing strategies. We hope these outlined considerations can assist the wider radiation oncology community as we collectively face this ongoing challenge.

4.
Radiother Oncol ; 148: 252-257, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-436475

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic warrants operational initiatives to minimize transmission, particularly among cancer patients who are thought to be at high-risk. Within our department, a multidisciplinary tracer team prospectively monitored all patients under investigation, tracking their test status, treatment delays, clinical outcomes, employee exposures, and quarantines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort tested for SARS-COV-2 infection over 35 consecutive days of the early pandemic (03/19/2020-04/22/2020). RESULTS: A total of 121 Radiation Oncology patients underwent RT-PCR testing during this timeframe. Of the 7 (6%) confirmed-positive cases, 6 patients were admitted (4 warranting intensive care), and 2 died from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Radiotherapy was deferred or interrupted for 40 patients awaiting testing. As the median turnaround time for RT-PCR testing decreased from 1.5 (IQR: 1-4) to ≤1-day (P < 0.001), the median treatment delay also decreased from 3.5 (IQR: 1.75-5) to 1 business day (IQR: 1-2) [P < 0.001]. Each patient was an exposure risk to a median of 5 employees (IQR: 3-6.5) through prolonged close contact. During this timeframe, 39 care-team members were quarantined for a median of 3 days (IQR: 2-11), with a peak of 17 employees simultaneously quarantined. Following implementation of a "dual PPE policy," newly quarantined employees decreased from 2.9 to 0.5 per day. CONCLUSION: The severe adverse events noted among these confirmed-positive cases support the notion that cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19. Active tracking, rapid diagnosis, and aggressive source control can mitigate the adverse effects on treatment delays, workforce incapacitation, and ideally outcomes.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Neoplasms/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Radiation Oncology/methods , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL