Dataset Information

Attitudes and Perceptions of Multidisciplinary Cancer Care Clinicians Toward Telehealth and Secure Messages.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Telehealth use including secure messages has rapidly expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic, including for multidisciplinary aspects of cancer care. Recent reports described rapid uptake and various benefits for patients and clinicians, suggesting that telehealth may be in standard use after the pandemic.

Objective

To examine attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians toward telehealth and secure messages.

Design, setting, and participants

Cross-sectional specialty-specific survey (ie, some questions appear only for relevant specialties) among multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians, collected from April 29, 2020, to June 5, 2020. Participants were all 285 clinicians in the fields of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, survivorship, and oncology navigation from all 21 community cancer centers of Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Main outcomes and measures

Clinician satisfaction, perceived benefits and challenges of telehealth, perceived quality of telehealth and secure messaging, preferred visit and communication types for different clinical activities, and preferences regarding postpandemic telehealth use.

Results

A total of 202 clinicians (71%) responded (104 of 128 medical oncologists, 34 of 37 radiation oncologists, 16 of 62 breast surgeons, 18 of 28 navigators, and 30 of 30 survivorship experts; 57% (116 of 202) were women; 73% [147 of 202] between ages 36-55 years). Seventy-six percent (n = 154) were satisfied with telehealth without statistically significant variations based on clinician characteristics. In-person visits were thought to promote a strong patient-clinician connection by 99% (n = 137) of respondents compared with 77% (n = 106) for video visits, 43% (n = 59) for telephone, and 14% (n = 19) for secure messages. The most commonly cited benefits of telehealth to clinicians included reduced commute (79%; n = 160), working from home (74%; n = 149), and staying on time (65%; n = 132); the most commonly cited negative factors included internet connection (84%; n = 170) or equipment problems (72%; n = 146), or physical examination needed (64%; n = 131). Most respondents (59%; n = 120) thought that video is adequate to manage the greater part of patient care in general; and most deemed various telehealth modalities suitable for any of the queried types of patient-clinician activities. For some specific activities, less than half of respondents thought that only an in-person visit is acceptable (eg, 49%; n = 66 for end-of-life discussion, 35%; n = 58 for new diagnosis). Most clinicians (82%; n = 166) preferred to maintain or increase use of telehealth after the pandemic.

Conclusions and relevance

In this survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians in the COVID-19 era, telehealth was well received and often preferred by most cancer care clinicians, who deemed it appropriate to manage most aspects of cancer care. As telehealth use becomes routine in some cancer care settings, video and telephone visits and use of asynchronous secure messaging with patients in cancer care has clear potential to extend beyond the pandemic period.

SUBMITTER: Neeman E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8613601 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesPalliative care (PC) is a specialty medical service that aims to address the bio-psycho-social-spiritual needs of patients with serious illnesses and their care partners. Despite the value of PC, its expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa has been uneven and particularly underdeveloped in Senegal due to variability in access to training resources and funding. This study sought to understand the current landscape of PC services in Senegal and the barriers and opportunities in its growth.Research design and methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with six PC clinicians, four caregivers of people with serious illnesses, one driver for a PC service, and one public health professor, all native to Senegal. Questions addressed their experience delivering or receiving PC, perceptions of barriers to implementation and access, and recommendations for additional resources and initiatives. Interviews were translated and transcribed from French into English. Transcripts were qualitatively coded for concepts during open and focused coding to identify themes.ResultsFive themes were identified: (1) the current landscape of PC, (2) barriers to implementing PC, (3) strategies and philosophies in care, (4) unique features of Senegalese culture, and (5) the future of PC.Discussion and implicationsOur findings demonstrate that PC in Senegal remains an underresourced and underutilized specialty medical service, but work is being done by personally committed clinicians. Results can inform PC expansion by highlighting important cultural factors influencing care in Senegal, as well as the need to expand training opportunities for clinicians, increase education of other medical providers and the public about the nature of PC, integrate PC into the healthcare system, and expand research to evaluate the impact of these resources. PC has the potential to be an important force for improving the quality of life for Senegalese patients and their care partners.

Project description:ImportanceClinician attitudes toward telehealth may impact utilization rates, and findings may differ based on specialty.ObjectiveTo determine whether clinician beliefs regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with the proportion of care delivered via video, phone, and in-person across specialties.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used a voluntary, anonymous survey conducted from August to September 2021 in the Department of Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System (VANEHS). Mental health (MH), primary care (PC), and specialty care (SC) clinicians were invited to participate. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022.ExposuresParticipation in a 32-item survey.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were clinicians' views on relative quality of video, phone, and in-person care; factors contributing to clinicians' modality choice; telehealth challenges; and clinician modality preferences and utilization when treating new and established patients.ResultsThere were 866 survey respondents (estimated 64% response rate); 52 respondents reported no video or phone telehealth use in the 3 months prior to survey completion and were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 814 respondents. Respondents were divided among MH (403 respondents [49.5%]), PC (153 respondents [18.8%]), and SC (258 respondents [31.7%]). Compared with PC and SC clinicians, MH clinicians rated the quality of video care the highest (eg, compared with in-person care with masks when treating new patients: χ2 = 147.8; P < .001) and were more likely to prefer video over phone when treating both new (χ2 = 26.6; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 100.4; P < .001) patients remotely. PC and SC clinicians were more likely to rate phone care as being at least equivalent in quality to video for both new (χ2 = 26.3; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 33.5; P < .001) patients. PC and SC clinicians were also more likely to endorse challenges of video care, including patient barriers and the inability to conduct a physical examination (χ2 = 292.0; P < .001). Most PC and SC clinicians either had no preference (46 PC respondents [36.2%]; 59 SC respondents [28.4%]) or preferred phone (36 PC respondents [28.3%]; 67 SC respondents [32.2%]) for remote care of established patients. Findings aligned with utilization rates within VANEHS, with MH clinicians conducting significantly more of their encounters via video (36 734 encounters [40.3%]) than PC (3201 encounters [3.9%]) and SC (1157 encounters [4.9%]) clinicians.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that clinician attitudes regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with utilization rates. Moving forward, clinician use of telehealth may be impacted by additional data regarding the relative effectiveness of modalities as well as improvements in video telehealth workflows.

Project description:ImportanceTelehealth has been posited as a cost-effective means for improving access to care for persons with chronic conditions, including kidney disease. Perceptions of telehealth among older patients with chronic illness, their care partners, and clinicians are largely unknown but are critical to successful telehealth use and expansion efforts.ObjectiveTo identify patient, care partner, and nephrologists' perceptions of the patient-centeredness, benefits, drawbacks of telehealth compared to in-person visits.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from August to December 2020 with purposively sampled patients (aged 70 years or older, chronic kidney disease stages 4 to 5), care partners, and clinicians in Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Maine; and San Diego, California.Main outcomes and measuresParticipants described telehealth experiences, including factors contributing to and impeding engagement, satisfaction, and quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data.ResultsOf 60 interviews, 19 (32%) were with clinicians, 30 (50%) with patients, and 11 (18%) with care partners; 16 clinicians (84%) were nephrologists; 17 patient participants (43%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 38 (67%) were women. Four overarching themes characterized telehealth's benefits and drawbacks for patient-centered care among older, chronically ill adults: inconsistent quality of care, patient experience and engagement, loss of connection and mistrust (eg, challenges discussing bad news), and disparities with accessing telehealth. Although telehealth improved convenience and care partner engagement, participants expressed concerns about clinical effectiveness and limitations of virtual physical examinations and potentially widening disparities in access. Many participants shared concerns about harms to the patient-clinician relationship, limited ability to comfort patients in virtual settings, and reduced patient trust.Conclusions and relevanceOlder patients, care partners, and kidney clinicians (ie, nephrologists and physician assistants) shared divergent views of patient-centered telehealth care, especially its clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and clinician-patient relationship. Understanding older patients' and kidney clinicians' perceptions of telehealth elucidate barriers that should be addressed to promote high-quality care and telehealth use.

Project description:Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians' opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed 'blockages'. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating 'enhanced care' units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.