Remote Home Monitoring of Patients With Cancer During the COVID Pandemic: A Pilot Study

An insight into the use of telemedicine technology for cancer patients during the Covid-19 pandemic: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The use of telemedicine technology has significantly increased in recent years, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the use of telemedicine technology for cancer patients during the Covid-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This was a scoping review conducted in 2023. Various databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Ovid, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, Embase, and Google Scholar search engine were searched. All quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies published in English between 2020 and 2022 were included. Finally, the needed data were extracted, and the results were synthesized and reported narratively.

RESULTS

A total of 29 articles were included in this review. The results showed that teleconsultation, televisit, and telerehabilitation were common telemedicine services, and video conferencing and telephone were common technologies used in these studies. In most cases, patients and healthcare providers preferred these services compared to the face-to-face consultations due to their convenience and advantages. Furthermore, the findings revealed that in terms of clinical outcomes, telemedicine could effectively reduce anxiety, pain, sleep disorders, and hospital admission rates.

CONCLUSION

The findings provided valuable insights into the various telemedicine technologies, services, users' perspectives, and clinical outcomes in cancer patients during the Covid-19 pandemic. Overall, the positive outcomes and users' satisfaction showed that the use of telemedicine technology can be expanded, particularly in cancer care. Future research needs to investigate both clinical and non-clinical effectiveness of using various telemedicine services and technologies for improving cancer care delivery, which can help to develop more successful strategies for implementing this technology.

A rapid mixed-methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England

Background

Remote home monitoring services were developed and implemented for patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic. Patients monitored blood oxygen saturation and other readings (e.g. temperature) at home and were escalated as necessary.

Objective

To evaluate effectiveness, costs, implementation, and staff and patient experiences (including disparities and mode) of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services in England during the COVID-19 pandemic (waves 1 and 2).

Methods

A rapid mixed-methods evaluation, conducted in two phases. Phase 1 (July-August 2020) comprised a rapid systematic review, implementation and economic analysis study (in eight sites). Phase 2 (January-June 2021) comprised a large-scale, multisite, mixed-methods study of effectiveness, costs, implementation and patient/staff experience, using national data sets, surveys (28 sites) and interviews (17 sites).

Results

Phase 1 Findings from the review and empirical study indicated that these services have been implemented worldwide and vary substantially. Empirical findings highlighted that communication, appropriate information and multiple modes of monitoring facilitated implementation; barriers included unclear referral processes, workforce availability and lack of administrative support. Phase 2 We received surveys from 292 staff (39% response rate) and 1069 patients/carers (18% response rate). We conducted interviews with 58 staff, 62 patients/carers and 5 national leads. Despite national roll-out, enrolment to services was lower than expected (average enrolment across 37 clinical commissioning groups judged to have completed data was 8.7%). There was large variability in implementation of services, influenced by patient (e.g. local population needs), workforce (e.g. workload), organisational (e.g. collaboration) and resource (e.g. software) factors. We found that for every 10% increase in enrolment to the programme, mortality was reduced by 2% (95% confidence interval: 4% reduction to 1% increase), admissions increased by 3% (-1% to 7%), in-hospital mortality fell by 3% (-8% to 3%) and lengths of stay increased by 1.8% (-1.2% to 4.9%). None of these results are statistically significant. We found slightly longer hospital lengths of stay associated with virtual ward services (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.09), and no statistically significant impact on subsequent COVID-19 readmissions (adjusted odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.02). Low patient enrolment rates and incomplete data may have affected chances of detecting possible impact. The mean running cost per patient varied for different types of service and mode; and was driven by the number and grade of staff. Staff, patients and carers generally reported positive experiences of services. Services were easy to deliver but staff needed additional training. Staff knowledge/confidence, NHS resources/workload, dynamics between multidisciplinary team members and patients' engagement with the service (e.g. using the oximeter to record and submit readings) influenced delivery. Patients and carers felt services and human contact received reassured them and were easy to engage with. Engagement was conditional on patient, support, resource and service factors. Many sites designed services to suit the needs of their local population. Despite adaptations, disparities were reported across some patient groups. For example, older adults and patients from ethnic minorities reported more difficulties engaging with the service. Tech-enabled models helped to manage large patient groups but did not completely replace phone calls.

Limitations

Limitations included data completeness, inability to link data on service use to outcomes at a patient level, low survey response rates and under-representation of some patient groups.

Future work

Further research should consider the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of these services and the appropriateness of different models for different groups of patients.

Conclusions

We were not able to find quantitative evidence that COVID-19 remote home monitoring services have been effective. However, low enrolment rates, incomplete data and varied implementation reduced our chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. While services were viewed positively by staff and patients, barriers to implementation, delivery and engagement should be considered.

Study registration

This study is registered with the ISRCTN (14962466).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (RSET: 16/138/17; BRACE: 16/138/31) and NHSEI and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Barriers to Telemedicine Use: Qualitative Analysis of Provider Perspectives During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Though telemedicine is a promising approach for removing barriers to care and improving access for patients, telemedicine use for many medical specialties has decreased from its peak during the acute COVID-19 public health crisis. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the maintenance of web-based visits-one key component of telemedicine-is critical for ensuring the continuous availability of this service for patients.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to describe medical providers' perceived barriers and facilitators to the continued use of web-based visits to inform quality improvement efforts and promote sustainability.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative content analysis of free-text responses from a survey of medical providers administered from February 5-14, 2021, at a large, midwestern academic institution, including all providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine (eg, physicians, residents or fellows, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, or nurses) who completed at least 1 web-based visit from March 20, 2020, to February 14, 2021. The primary outcome was the experience of providing web-based visits, including barriers and facilitators to continued usage of web-based visits. Survey questions included 3 major domains: quality of care, technology, and satisfaction. Responses were coded using qualitative content analysis and further analyzed through a matrix analysis to understand the providers' perspectives and elucidate key barriers and facilitators of web-based visit usage.

RESULTS

Of 2692 eligible providers, 1040 (38.6%) completed the survey, of whom 702 were providers from medical professions that offered telemedicine. These providers spanned 7 health care professions and 47 clinical departments. The most common professions represented were physicians (486/702, 46.7%), residents or fellows (85/702, 8.2%), and nurse practitioners (81/702, 7.8%), while the most common clinical departments were internal medicine (69/702, 6.6%), psychiatry (69/702, 6.6%), and physical medicine and rehabilitation (67/702, 6.4%). The following 4 overarching categories of provider experience with web-based visits emerged: quality of care, patient rapport, visit flow, and equity. Though many providers saw web-based visits as a tool for improving care access, quality, and equity, others shared how appropriate selection of web-based visits, support (eg, patient training, home devices, and broadband access), and institutional and nationwide optimization (eg, relaxation of licensing requirements across state borders and reimbursement for phone-only modalities) were needed to sustain web-based visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate key barriers to the maintenance of telemedicine services following the acute public health crisis. These findings can help prioritize the most impactful methods of sustaining and expanding telemedicine availability for patients who prefer this method of care delivery.

COVID19 in hematological patients and telemedicine: lessons learned across Europe and the US

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the state-of-the-art of telemedicine in hematology through the description of most relevant studies published in the pre-COVID19 and during the COVID19 era.

RECENT FINDINGS

Telemedicine has recently gained momentum in hematology due to the COVID19 pandemic. Due to a necessary improvement of domiciliary follow-up of patients during the pandemic and an increase in technologies able to offer telemedicine, the number of studies has increased in the last 2 years. Telemedicine showed the potential to improve the monitoring of both benign and malignant hematological diseases. Patients affected by thalassemias, hemophilias and/or myeloproliferative diseases were monitored successfully with telemedicine platform. For higher-risk patients such as high-dose chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation, better platforms are needed (e.g. use of wearable devices systems). Also, telemedicine showed to be useful for the follow-up of hematological patients with COVID19.

SUMMARY

Despite the clear potential advantages of telemedicine for the follow-up of hematological patients, more evidence is required before adopting this approach in larger cohorts of patients. Larger- and higher-quality studies are highly needed in this setting.

Prevention of HBV Reactivation in Hemato-Oncologic Setting during COVID-19

Onco-hematologic patients are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and, once infected, frequently develop COVID-19 due to the immunosuppression caused by tumor growth, chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy. In addition, COVID-19 has also been recognized as a further cause of HBV reactivation, since its treatment includes the administration of corticosteroids and some immunosuppressive drugs. Consequently, onco-hematologic patients should undergo SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and comply with the rules imposed by lockdowns or other forms of social distancing. Furthermore, onco-hematologic facilities should be adapted to new needs and provided with numerically adequate health personnel vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Onco-hematologic patients, both HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive, may develop HBV reactivation, made possible by the support of the covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) persisting in the hepatocytic nuclei of patients with an ongoing or past HBV infection. This occurrence must be prevented by administering high genetic barrier HBV nucleo(t)side analogues before and throughout the antineoplastic treatment, and then during a long-term post-treatment follow up. The prevention of HBV reactivation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is the topic of this narrative review.

RELIEF: A Digital Health Tool for the Remote Self-Reporting of Symptoms in Patients with Cancer to Address Palliative Care Needs and Minimize Emergency Department Visits

The lack of timely symptom reporting remains a barrier to effective symptom management and comfort for patients with cancer-related palliative care needs. Poor symptom management at home can lead to unwanted outcomes, such as emergency department visits and death in hospital. We developed and evaluated RELIEF, a remote symptom self-reporting app for community patients with palliative care needs. A pilot feasibility study was conducted at a large, community hospital in Ontario, Canada. Patients self-reported their symptoms each morning using validated clinical symptom measures and RELIEF would alert for worsening or severe symptoms. RELIEF alerts were monitored by palliative care nurses who would then contact patients to determine if appropriate clinical intervention could be initiated to avoid unnecessary emergency department visits. A total of 20 patients were recruited to use RELIEF for two months. Patients completed 80% of daily self-report assessments; 133 alerts were trigged, half of which required clinical intervention. No patient visited the emergency department for symptom management during the study. Clinical staff estimated five emergency department visits were avoided because of RELIEF-saving an estimated cost of over CAD 60,000. RELIEF is a feasible and acceptable method for the remote monitoring of patients with palliative care needs through regular symptom self-reporting.

Oncology Patients' Perspectives on Remote Patient Monitoring for COVID-19

PURPOSE

Oncology patients are vulnerable to adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19, and clinical deterioration must be identified early. Several institutions launched remote patient monitoring programs (RPMPs) to care for patients with COVID-19. We describe patients' perspectives on a COVID-19 RPMP at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center.

METHODS

Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were eligible. Enrolled patients received a daily electronic COVID-19 symptom assessment, and a subset of high-risk patients also received a pulse oximeter. Monitoring was provided by a centralized team and was discontinued 14 days after a patient's positive test result and following 3 days without worsening symptoms. Patients who completed at least one assessment and exited the program were sent a patient engagement survey to evaluate the patient's experience with digital monitoring for COVID-19.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 491 patients, and 257 responded (52% completion rate). The net promoter score was 85%. Most patients agreed that the RPMP was worthwhile, enabled better management of their COVID-19 symptoms, made them feel more connected to their healthcare team, and helped prevent emergency room visits. Identified themes regarding patient-perceived value of a RPMP included (1) security: a clinical safety net; (2) connection: a link to their clinical team during a period of isolation; and (3) empowerment: an education on the virus and symptom management.

CONCLUSION

RPMPs are perceived to be of value to oncology patients with COVID-19. Policymakers should consider how these programs can be reimbursed to keep vulnerable patients at home and out of the acute care setting.