Specialist haematology consultation services in regional Western Australia: Evaluating a model combining telehealth and onsite clinics

Variation in telehealth use for endocrine care: Patterns and predictors under the "new normal"

IntroductionUse of telehealth for outpatient endocrine care remains common since onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, though the context for its use has matured. We aimed to describe the variation in telehealth use for outpatient endocrine visits under these "new normal" conditions and examine the patient, clinician-, and organization-level factors predicting use.MethodsRetrospective cross-sectional study using data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse on 167,017 endocrine visits conducted between 3/9/21 and 3/8/22. We used mixed effects logistic regression models to examine 1) use of telehealth vs. in-person care among all visits and 2) use of telephone vs. video among the subsample of telehealth visits.ResultsVisits were in person (58%), by telephone (29%), or by video (13%). Unique variability in telehealth use at each level of the analysis was 56% patient visit, 24% clinician, 18% facility. The strongest predictors were visit type (first vs. follow up) and clinician and facility characteristics. Among telehealth visits, unique variability in telephone (vs. video) use at each level was 44% patient visit, 24% clinician, 26% facility. The strongest predictors of telephone vs. video were visit type, patient age, and percent of the facility's population that was rural.ConclusionsWe found wide variation in use of telehealth for endocrinology under the "new normal". Future research should examine clinician and facility factors driving variation, as many may be amenable to influence by clinical leaders and leveraged to enhance the availability of telehealth for all clinically appropriate patients.

The Unintended Consequences of Telehealth in Australia: Critical Interpretive Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Despite more than 2 decades of telehealth use in Australia and the rapid uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about its unintended consequences beyond its planned and intended outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to synthesize evidence on the unintended consequences of telehealth use in Australia to clarify its impact beyond its planned and intended outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a search of 4 electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, and Scopus. A critical interpretive synthesis approach was adopted for its flexibility and interpretive nature. We extracted data about study characteristics and the types and models of telehealth services. The extracted unintended consequences were coded and mapped into the domains and dimensions of the Australian Health Performance Framework.

RESULTS

Of the 4241 records identified by the search, 94 (2.22%) studies were eligible for data extraction and analysis. Of these 94 studies, 23 (24%) reported largely positive unintended consequences of telehealth associated with health status, while 6 (6%) noted a potential negative impact of telehealth on socioeconomic status. The findings of 4 (4%) of the 94 studies highlighted societal and financial consequences of telehealth beyond the health system. Almost all studies (93/94, 99%) reported unintended consequences under the 5 dimensions of the Australian Health Performance Framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Our synthesis offers a framework for understanding the unintended consequences of the use of telehealth as an alternative to in-person care in Australia. While we have documented many unintended benefits of telehealth use, our findings also shed light on many challenges of delivering care via telehealth across different domains and dimensions. These findings hold significant practice and policy-making implications for ensuring safe and high-quality care delivery via telehealth.

Colorectal cancer survivors' experiences and views of shared and telehealth models of survivorship care: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is increasing and current models of survivorship care are unsustainable. There is a drive to implement alternative models of care including shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital-based providers. The primary objective of this study was to explore perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared care. The secondary objective was to explore experiences of telehealth-delivered care.

METHOD

Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with participants in the Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors (SCORE) randomised controlled trial. Interviews explored patient experiences of usual and shared survivorship care during the SCORE trial. In response to the COVID pandemic, participant experiences of telehealth appointments were also explored. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty survivors of CRC were interviewed with an even number in the shared and usual care arms; 14 (70%) were male. Facilitators to shared care included: good relationships with GPs; convenience of GPs; good communication between providers; desire to reduce public health system pressures. Barriers included: poor communication between clinicians; inaccessibility of GPs; beliefs about GP capacity; and a preference for follow-up care with the hospital after positive treatment experiences. Participants also commonly expressed a preference for telehealth-based follow-up when there was no need for a clinical examination.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of few studies that have explored patient experiences with shared and telehealth-based survivorship care. Findings can guide the implementation of these models, particularly around care coordination, communication, preparation, and personalised pathways of care.

Evaluating video-based consultations in routine clinical practice at a comprehensive cancer center

INTRODUCTION

Integrating telemedicine into cancer care remains a major challenge. There are little clinical evidence for teleconsultation efficacy and safety in daily oncology practice. This study as a pioneering experience, aimed to analyze patient and physician opinions regarding the implementation of telemedicine consultations, and to identify major limitations of telehealth spread in an oncology institute.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

During COVID-19 lockdown, patients and physicians who took part to at least one video-based teleconsultation between March and May 2020, were enrolled in this observational study. All eligible patients received an anonymous online questionnaire. On the other hand, all physicians eligible to participate were asked through email to complete a questionnaire.

RESULTS

In this study, 31 physicians and 304 patients consented to participate in this study by answering the questionnaire and were included. Regarding telemedicine satisfaction, 65.8% of patients were satisfied. The lack of clinical examination was the major limitation reported by 77% of patients. Patients belonging to a high socio-professional category were statistically more dissatisfied with the relationship with their doctor (OR = 2.31 and 95% CI [1.12; 4.74]).

CONCLUSION

This study showed promising results of incorporating video-based teleconsultations into cancer patient management. Randomized clinical trials are needed in order to accelerate the digital implementation in clinical practice.

Appropriate Use of Telehealth Visits in Endocrinology: Policy Perspective of the Endocrine Society

OBJECTIVE

This work aims to guide clinicians practicing endocrinology in the use of telehealth (synchronous patient-clinician visits conducted over video or telephone) for outpatient care.

PARTICIPANTS

The Endocrine Society convened a 9-member panel of US endocrinologists with expertise in telehealth clinical care, telehealth operations, patient-centered care, health care delivery research, and/or evidence-based medicine.

EVIDENCE

The panel conducted a literature search to identify studies published since 2000 about telehealth in endocrinology. One member extracted a list of factors affecting the quality of endocrine care via telehealth from the extant literature. The panel grouped these factors into 5 domains: clinical, patient, patient-clinician relationship, clinician, and health care setting and technology.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

For each domain, 2 or 3 members drew on existing literature and their expert opinions to draft a section examining the effect of the domain's component factors on the appropriateness of telehealth use within endocrine practice. Appropriateness was evaluated in the context of the 6 Institute of Medicine aims for health care quality: patient-centeredness, equity, safety, effectiveness, timeliness, and efficiency. The panel held monthly virtual meetings to discuss and revise each domain. Two members wrote the remaining sections and integrated them with the domains to create the full policy perspective, which was reviewed and revised by all members.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth has become a common care modality within endocrinology. This policy perspective summarizes the factors determining telehealth appropriateness in various patient care scenarios. Strategies to increase the quality of telehealth care are offered. More research is needed to develop a robust evidence base for future guideline development.