Impact of Telemedicine on Patient Satisfaction and Perceptions of Care Quality in Radiation Oncology.

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.

Radiation Oncologist Perceptions of Telemedicine from Consultation to Treatment Planning: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine was rapidly implemented for initial consultations and radiation treatment planning in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, we explore utilization of and physician perspectives on this approach in an attempt to identify patient populations that may benefit most from virtual care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a mixed-methods study with a convergent design. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks after implementation of telemedicine, all radiation oncologists in a single academic radiation oncology department were invited to participate in either semistructured interviews with embedded survey questions or a concurrently administered survey only. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify common themes, and quantitative data was assessed using descriptive statistics and univariable analyses. RESULTS: At the apex of the pandemic, 92% of radiation oncology visits were conducted via telemedicine. In total, 51 of 61 radiation oncologists participated in the study (response rate 84%). Most (71%) reported no difference in ability to treat cancer appropriately via telemedicine, which was more common among specialized physicians (P = .01) but not those with higher visit volume or years of experience. Over half (55%) perceived no difference or even improvement in overall visit quality with telemedicine. Virtual visits were deemed acceptable for a median of 70% to 96% of patients, which varied by disease site. Need for physical examination, and availability of an acceptable proxy, factored into telemedicine acceptability. Most (88%) found telemedicine better than expected, but opinions were split on how telemedicine would affect physician burnout. Almost all (96%) foresaw a role for telemedicine beyond the pandemic and would opt for a median of 50% (interquartile range 20%-66%) of visits conducted via telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: Among radiation oncologists in an academic setting, telemedicine was perceived to be highly appropriate and acceptable for most patients. Future studies should focus on identifying the 5% to 30% of patients whose care may be optimized with in-person visits, and if there is alignment with patient preferences.

Breast Radiation Therapy Under COVID-19 Pandemic Resource Constraints-Approaches to Defer or Shorten Treatment From a Comprehensive Cancer Center in the United States.

PURPOSE: Breast radiation therapy accounts for a significant proportion of patient volume in contemporary radiation oncology practice. In the setting of anticipated resource constraints and widespread community infection with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic, measures for balancing both infectious and oncologic risk among patients and providers must be carefully considered. Here, we present evidence-based guidelines for omitting or abbreviating breast cancer radiation therapy, where appropriate, in an effort to mitigate risk to patients and optimize resource utilization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Multidisciplinary breast cancer experts at a high-volume comprehensive cancer center convened contingency planning meetings over the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to review the relevant literature and establish recommendations for the application of hypofractionated and abbreviated breast radiation regimens. RESULTS: Substantial evidence exists to support omitting radiation among certain favorable risk subgroups of patients with breast cancer and for abbreviating or accelerating regimens among others. For those who require either whole-breast or postmastectomy radiation, with or without coverage of the regional lymph nodes, a growing body of literature supports various hypofractionated approaches that appear safe and effective. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a public health emergency with the potential to strain critical healthcare resources and place patients at risk of infection, the parsimonious application of breast radiation therapy may alleviate a significant clinical burden without compromising long-term oncologic outcomes. The judicious and personalized use of immature study data may be warranted in the setting of a competing mortality risk from this widespread pandemic.