Physician Perspectives on Telemedicine in Radiation Oncology.

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.

Implementation and Assessment of an Informal Virtual Elective for Medical Student Radiation Oncology Exploration During the COVID19 Pandemic: a Brief Report.

Subspecialty exposure during medical school can be limited. Moreover, the COVID19 pandemic prevented most onsite elective medical student (MS) rotations during 2020. Therefore, we sought to create and assess the efficacy of an informal virtual elective (IVE) for MSs to explore radiation oncology (RO) at our institution. We created IVE activities including invitations to resident didactics, a faculty lecture series, and interactive virtual events with residents and faculty. MSs were offered RO resident and faculty mentors and the opportunity to deliver a lecture. Pre- and post-IVE evaluation surveys were sent to 27 4th year MSs. Surveys utilized importance ordering (1=most important; reported as median (interquartile range), free response, and Likert-type questions (5 = extremely, 1=not at all). Our IVE, held from July to October 2020, had a median of 11 students (range 7-18) attend each activity. Pre- and post-IVE surveys were completed by 22/27 (81%) and 20/27 (74%) MSs, respectively. In pre-IVE, MSs reported participating in the IVE for faculty/resident interaction (1.5 [1, 2]), networking (3 [2, 3]), and learning (4 [3-5]). In post-IVE, MSs reported benefit from faculty mentors (5 [4, 5]), delivering a presentation (5 [3-5]), and faculty lectures (4.5 [4, 5]). In post-IVE, MSs preferred a full onsite away elective (16, 80%) over an official virtual elective (1, 5%) or IVE (3, 15%). Overall, MSs reported that the IVE provided an adequate introduction to RO at our institution (4 [4, 5]). Alternative virtual elective experiences allow MSs to informally evaluate medical subspecialties and could be offered even if formal elective opportunities are available.

Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.

Radiation Oncology Strategies to Flatten the Curve During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: Experience From a Large Tertiary Cancer Center.

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.

Understanding the Intersection of Working from Home and Burnout to Optimize Post-COVID19 Work Arrangements in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: To evaluate burnout in an academic radiation oncology program after the workforce shifted to working from home all or part of the time to better understand the impact of remote work and if it is sustainable after the COVID-19 virus abates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In May 2020, in the midst of work-safe policies in the state and stabilizing COVID-19 case numbers, the Qualtrics-based MiniZ burnout survey was amended to include questions related to COVID-19 and working from home and was emailed to all radiation oncology employees across 3 departments: radiation oncology, radiation physics, and experimental radiation oncology. Descriptive and χ2 statistics were calculated within Qualtrics using StatIQ to evaluate factors associated with burnout and positive work from home experience. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-five employees completed the survey. Aggregating 3 responses that indicate having some degree of burnout, the rate of burnout across the cohort was 32%. For the same survey questions administered a year earlier, burnout rate was reported to be 40%. In the current survey, radiation oncology faculty and therapists had the highest reported burnout rates, at 47% and 44%, respectively (P = .031). The majority of employees working from home at least part of the time reported the experience was positive (74%, 323/436), and feeling positive about working from home was associated with reduced burnout (P = .030). Qualitative data review suggested the main drivers of unfavorable work-from-home responses were child/family care issues and information technology issues. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout was not increased during the emerging COVID-19 period compared with pre-COVID data. The shift to working from home was positive for most of the workforce and a potential benefit in reducing burnout for many staff groups. Maintaining work-from-home options post COVID-19 may help reduce burnout long term. It is important to personalize options for those unable to work effectively from home and to resolve information technology challenges to ensure functionality.

Radiation for Glioblastoma in the Era of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Patient Selection and Hypofractionation to Maximize Benefit and Minimize Risk.

We describe the institutional guidelines of a major tertiary cancer center with regard to using hypofractionated radiation regimens to treat glioblastoma as a measure to minimize exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while not sacrificing clinical outcomes. Our guidelines review level one evidence of various hypofractionated regimens, and recommend a multidisciplinary approach while balancing the risk of morbidity and mortality among individuals at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 infection. We also briefly outline strategies our department is taking in mitigating risk among our cancer patients undergoing radiation.

Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on oncology: Clinical and operational lessons from a prospective radiation oncology cohort tested for COVID-19.

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.