Telehealth visit type and patient-reported outcomes among patients with cancer

Daniel S. Carson M.D., M.S. , Sam Simpson B.S. , Adam J. Gadzinski M.D., M.S. , Sarah K. Holt Ph.D. , Blair Stewart M.S. , Erika M. Wolff Ph.D. , Chad Ellimoottil M.D., M.S. , John L. Gore M.D., M.S., F.A.C.S.
{"title":"Telehealth visit type and patient-reported outcomes among patients with cancer","authors":"Daniel S. Carson M.D., M.S. ,&nbsp;Sam Simpson B.S. ,&nbsp;Adam J. Gadzinski M.D., M.S. ,&nbsp;Sarah K. Holt Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Blair Stewart M.S. ,&nbsp;Erika M. Wolff Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Chad Ellimoottil M.D., M.S. ,&nbsp;John L. Gore M.D., M.S., F.A.C.S.","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.07.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Relaxed licensing restrictions on telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed broad use irrespective of visit type. As these telehealth waivers expire, optimal uses of telehealth must be assessed to inform policy and clinical care. We evaluated patient experience associated with telehealth and in-person new or established visits.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients seen in-person and via telehealth for urologic cancer care from August 2019 to June 2022 received a survey on satisfaction with care, perceptions of communication during their visit, travel time, travel costs, and days of work missed. We assessed survey responses with descriptive statistics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Surveys were completed for 1,031 patient visits (N = 494 new visits, N = 537 established visits). Satisfaction rates were high for all visit modalities among new and established patients (mean score range 59.9–60.7 [maximum 63], <em>P</em> &gt; 0.05). Patient-rated quality of the encounter did not differ by visit type and modality (<em>P</em> &gt; 0.05, for nearly all comparisons). New in-person patient visits were associated with significantly higher travel costs (mean $496.10, SD $1021) compared with new telehealth visits (mean $26.60, SD $141; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001); 27% of new in-person patients required plane travel and 41% required a hotel stay (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001 vs. 0.8% and 3.2% of new telehealth patients, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Satisfaction outcomes among patients with urologic cancer receiving new patient telehealth care equaled those of new patients cared for in-person while costs were significantly lower. Offering telehealth exemption beyond COVID-19 licensing waivers to include new patient visits would allow for ongoing delivery of high-quality urologic cancer care irrespective of geographic location.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":"42 12","pages":"Pages 448.e17-448.e22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078143924005696","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Relaxed licensing restrictions on telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed broad use irrespective of visit type. As these telehealth waivers expire, optimal uses of telehealth must be assessed to inform policy and clinical care. We evaluated patient experience associated with telehealth and in-person new or established visits.

Methods

Patients seen in-person and via telehealth for urologic cancer care from August 2019 to June 2022 received a survey on satisfaction with care, perceptions of communication during their visit, travel time, travel costs, and days of work missed. We assessed survey responses with descriptive statistics.

Results

Surveys were completed for 1,031 patient visits (N = 494 new visits, N = 537 established visits). Satisfaction rates were high for all visit modalities among new and established patients (mean score range 59.9–60.7 [maximum 63], P > 0.05). Patient-rated quality of the encounter did not differ by visit type and modality (P > 0.05, for nearly all comparisons). New in-person patient visits were associated with significantly higher travel costs (mean $496.10, SD $1021) compared with new telehealth visits (mean $26.60, SD $141; P < 0.001); 27% of new in-person patients required plane travel and 41% required a hotel stay (P < 0.001 vs. 0.8% and 3.2% of new telehealth patients, respectively).

Conclusions

Satisfaction outcomes among patients with urologic cancer receiving new patient telehealth care equaled those of new patients cared for in-person while costs were significantly lower. Offering telehealth exemption beyond COVID-19 licensing waivers to include new patient visits would allow for ongoing delivery of high-quality urologic cancer care irrespective of geographic location.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
癌症患者的远程医疗就诊类型和患者报告的结果。
背景:在 COVID-19 大流行期间,放宽了对远程保健使用的许可限制,允许不分就诊类型广泛使用远程保健。随着这些远程医疗豁免的到期,必须对远程医疗的最佳使用进行评估,以便为政策和临床护理提供依据。我们评估了与远程医疗和面对面新就诊或已就诊相关的患者体验:从 2019 年 8 月到 2022 年 6 月,亲自就诊和通过远程医疗接受泌尿系统癌症护理的患者接受了一项调查,内容包括对护理的满意度、对就诊期间沟通的看法、旅行时间、旅行费用和误工天数。我们通过描述性统计对调查回复进行了评估:共完成了 1,031 次患者就诊的调查(N = 494 次新就诊,N = 537 次已就诊)。新患者和老患者对所有就诊方式的满意度都很高(平均得分范围为 59.9-60.7 [最高 63],P > 0.05)。患者对就诊质量的评分在就诊类型和就诊方式上没有差异(几乎所有比较中,P > 0.05)。与新的远程医疗就诊(平均 26.60 美元,标准差 141 美元;P < 0.001)相比,新的面对面就诊患者的差旅费用明显更高(平均 496.10 美元,标准差 1021 美元);27% 的新面对面就诊患者需要乘坐飞机,41% 的新面对面就诊患者需要入住酒店(P < 0.001,而新的远程医疗就诊患者的差旅费用分别为 0.8% 和 3.2%):结论:接受远程医疗服务的泌尿系统癌症新患者的满意度与接受面对面服务的新患者相当,而费用却明显较低。在 COVID-19 许可豁免范围之外提供远程医疗豁免,将新患者就诊纳入其中,将使高质量的泌尿系统癌症护理得以持续提供,而不受地理位置的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
7.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Cover 2 - Masthead Cover 3 - GF 397 Delayed partial nephrectomy following complete response to immunotherapy: feasibility and results (UroCCR n°157).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1