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. , 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.","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> > 0.05). Patient-rated quality of the encounter did not differ by visit type and modality (<em>P</em> > 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> < 0.001); 27% of new in-person patients required plane travel and 41% required a hotel stay (<em>P</em> < 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.
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.