6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the perceptions and experiences of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, oncology navigators, and cancer survivorship) with regard to telehealth visits and exchanging secure messages with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic?

          Findings

          In this survey study of 202 multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians, most were satisfied with telehealth and wished to maintain or increase future use. Despite being thought to promote a weaker patient-clinician connection, telehealth was considered appropriate by most to handle the greater part of patient assessment and care; however, some clinicians preferred in-person visits for certain activities.

          Meaning

          Results of this survey study suggest that telehealth is well accepted by various cancer care clinicians, and is likely to remain used to some extent for most aspects of cancer care in the future.

          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.

          Abstract

          This survey study assesses the attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians (from the fields of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, survivorship, and oncology navigation) toward telehealth and secure messages.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Telemedicine in Cancer Care

            Telemedicine uses telecommunications technology as a tool to deliver health care to populations with limited access to care. Telemedicine has been tested in multiple clinical settings, demonstrating at least equivalency to in-person care and high levels of patient and health professional satisfaction. Teleoncology has been demonstrated to improve access to care and decrease health care costs. Teleconsultations may take place in a synchronous, asynchronous, or blended format. Examples of successful teleoncology applications include cancer telegenetics, bundling of cancer-related teleapplications, remote chemotherapy supervision, symptom management, survivorship care, palliative care, and approaches to increase access to cancer clinical trials. Telepathology is critical to cancer care and may be accomplished synchronously and asynchronously for both cytology and tissue diagnoses. Mobile applications support symptom management, lifestyle modification, and medication adherence as a tool for home-based care. Telemedicine can support the oncologist with access to interactive tele-education. Teleoncology practice should maintain in-person professional standards, including documentation integrated into the patient’s electronic health record. Telemedicine training is essential to facilitate rapport, maximize engagement, and conduct an accurate virtual exam. With the appropriate attachments, the only limitation to the virtual exam is palpation. The national telehealth resource centers can provide interested clinicians with the latest information on telemedicine reimbursement, parity, and practice. To experience the gains of teleoncology, appropriate training, education, as well as paying close attention to gaps, such as those inherent in the digital divide, are essential.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Interventions to reduce burnout of physicians and nurses

              Abstract Objective: Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the interventions to reduce burnout of physicians and nurses have been published nowadays. This study aimed to summarize the evidence and clarify a bundled strategy to reduce burnout of physicians and nurses. Methods: Researches have been conducted within Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, EBSCO, and CINAHL published from inception to 2019. In addition, a manual search for relevant articles was also conducted using Google Scholar and ancestral searches through the reference lists from articles included in the final review. Two reviewers independently selected and assessed, and any disagreements were resolved through a larger team discussion. A data extraction spreadsheet was developed and initially piloted in 3 randomly selected studies. Data from each study were extracted independently using a pre-standardized data abstraction form. The the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews and assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool were used to evaluate risk of bias and quality of included articles. Results: A total of 22 studies published from 2014 to 2019 were eligible for analysis. Previous studies have examined burnout among physicians (n = 9), nurses (n = 6) and healthcare providers (n = 7). The MBI was used by majority of studies to assess burnout. The included studies evaluated a wide range of interventions, individual-focused (emotion regulation, self-care workshop, yoga, massage, mindfulness, meditation, stress management skills and communication skills training), structural or organizational (workload or schedule-rotation, stress management training program, group face-to-face delivery, teamwork/transitions, Balint training, debriefing sessions and a focus group) and combine interventions (snoezelen, stress management and resiliency training, stress management workshop and improving interaction with colleagues through personal training). Based on the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews and AMSTAR 2 criteria, the risk of bias and methodological quality included studies was from moderate to high. Conclusions: Burnout is a complicated problem and should be dealt with by using bundled strategy. The existing overview clarified evidence to reduce burnout of physicians and nurses, which provided a basis for health policy makers or clinical managers to design simple and feasible strategies to reduce the burnout of physicians and nurses, and to ensure clinical safety.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                24 November 2021
                November 2021
                24 November 2021
                : 4
                : 11
                : e2133877
                Affiliations
                [1 ]San Francisco Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Francisco
                [2 ]Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland
                [3 ]Napa/Solano Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Napa
                [4 ]San Leandro Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Leandro
                [5 ]Oakland Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland
                [6 ]Richmond Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Richmond
                [7 ]Vallejo Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo
                [8 ]Modesto Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Modesto
                [9 ]The Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: September 5, 2021.
                Published: November 24, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33877
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Neeman E et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Elad Neeman, MD, San Francisco Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2238 Geary Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94131 ( eladneeman@ 123456gmail.com ).
                Author Contributions : Dr Neeman had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Neeman, Kolevska, Reed, Arora, Li, Kuehner, Likely Sprague, Trosman, Weldon, Liu.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Neeman, Kumar, Lyon, Sundaresan, Seaward, Weldon, Liu.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Neeman, Lyon, Arora, Weldon, Liu.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Neeman, Kumar, Kolevska, Reed, Sundaresan, Li, Seaward, Kuehner, Likely Sprague, Trosman, Weldon, Liu.
                Statistical analysis: Neeman, Lyon, Weldon.
                Obtained funding: Kolevska.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Neeman, Kumar, Kolevska, Reed, Sundaresan, Seaward, Likely Sprague, Trosman, Weldon, Liu.
                Supervision: Kolevska, Sundaresan, Kuehner, Likely Sprague, Trosman, Liu.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kumar reported that her father owns a telehealth company. Dr Trosman reported receiving other funding from Genentech Consulting outside the submitted work. Dr Weldon reported receiving grants from the Coleman Foundation, which did not directly fund this work but did fund some work conducted with the UIC during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Genentech not specific to published work, grants from Merck Foundation not specific to published work, grants from Pfizer Foundation not specific to published work, personal fees from ECOG-ACRIN not specific to published work, personal fees from NCCN not specific to published work, personal fees from ACCC not specific to published work, and personal fees from Lungevity not specific to published work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, which is the employer of the first and second authors.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi210957
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33877
                8613601
                34817586
                45ffd224-d559-41bb-b750-632f53fe4597
                Copyright 2021 Neeman E et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 17 June 2021
                : 5 September 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article