Patient preferences for GI cancer surveillance and telemedical follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance care including routine physical exams and testing following gastrointestinal (GI) cancer treatment can be fiscally and emotionally burdensome for patients. Emerging technology platforms may provide a resource-wise surveillance strategy. However, effective implementation of GI cancer surveillance is limited by a lack of patient level perspective regarding surveillance. This study aimed to describe patient attitudes toward GI cancer surveillance and which care modalities such as telemedicine and care team composition best meet the patient's needs for follow-up care. METHODS: Focused interviews were conducted with 15 GI cancer patients undergoing surveillance following curative-intent surgery. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and uploaded to NVivo. Study personnel trained in qualitative methods consensus coded 10% of data inductively and iteratively developed a codebook and code descriptions. Using all transcripts, data matrices were developed to identify themes inherent in the transcripts. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed three overarching themes. First, increasing ease of access to surveillance care through telemedicine follow-up services may interfere with patients' preferred follow-up routine, which is an in-office visit. Second, specialist providers were trusted by patients to deliver surveillance care more than primary care providers (PCPs). Thirdly, patients desired improved psychosocial health support during the surveillance period. CONCLUSION: These novel patient-level qualitative data demonstrate that replacing conventional in-office GI cancer surveillance care with telemedicine is not what many patients desire. These data also demonstrate that his cohort of patients prefer to see specialists for GI cancer surveillance care rather than PCPs. Future efforts to enhance surveillance should include increased psychosocial support. Telemedicine implementation should be personalized toward specific populations who may be interested in fewer in-office surveillance visits.

Patient and provider perceptions on utilizing a mobile technology platform to improve surgical outcomes in the perioperative setting.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient engagement software is a ubiquitous and expensive commercially available tool designed to improve transitions of care. There are currently no high-quality patient and provider-level data about the usability of these products for surgical oncology patients. This study aims to better understand patient and provider attitudes and perceptions about the implementation of such technology. METHODS: Focused interviews were conducted following the demonstration of a provider-built mobile technology platform. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Data were consensus coded inductively and categorized into themes regarding patient and provider perspectives on the usability and implementation of MobiMD. RESULTS: Our interviews revealed four consistent themes: (1) patients feel there is a lack of reliable resources for patient education; (2) both patients and providers are supportive of using a mobile application; (3) providers perceive patient onboarding as an added burden on current workflows; and (4) after onboarding, providers express that such an application would optimize current workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceive a need for improved perioperative education. Providers and patients agree that a mobile technology platform would be an effective solution in addressing this need. Effective implementation of such an intervention may improve patient education and engagement, leading to improved patient outcomes.

A telephone-based surgical transitional care program with improved patient satisfaction scores and fiscal neutrality.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the downstream effects of surgical transitional care programs. We explored the impact of such programs on patient satisfaction and fiscal metrics. METHODS: A telephone-based surgical transitional care program enrolled patients undergoing complex abdominal surgery between 2015 to 2017. A matched cohort undergoing similar procedures between 2010 to 2015 were used as controls. Press Ganey scores were used to reflect patient satisfaction. Hospital costs, reimbursements, and margins were analyzed for index hospitalizations and readmissions within 90 days of surgery. RESULTS: There were 607 patients in the control group and 608 in the transitional care program; survey response rates were 37% and 35%, respectively. Transitional care patients rated their understanding of personal responsibilities in post-discharge care higher than controls (59% vs 69%, P = .02). Transitional care patients felt they received better educational materials about their condition or treatment (55% vs 68%, P < .01) and rated their global hospital experience higher (46% vs 57%, P = .02). The aggregate (index plus readmission) cost was greater for the transitional care ($22,814 vs $25,827, P < .01), but there was no difference in aggregate margin ($7,027 vs $4,698, P = .25). Multivariable adjustment yielded similar results for the aggregate cost (ref vs $2,232, P = .03) and margin (ref vs $1,299, P = .23). CONCLUSION: The use of this dedicated abdominal surgery transitional care program is associated with improved Press Ganey patient education and global rating scores. The cost to support this program did not adversely affect the hospital margin when considering all factors. These data support broader investment in patient centered initiatives that may significantly enhance patient experience.