Telemedicine Utilization in the Ambulatory Palliative Care Setting: Are There Disparities?

Transforming patient-centered cancer care using telehealth: the MATCHES Center

Modern cancer care is costly and logistically burdensome for patients and their families despite an expansion of technology and medical advances that create the opportunity for novel approaches to care. Therefore, there is a growing appreciation for the need to leverage these innovations to make cancer care more patient centered and convenient. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Making Telehealth Delivery of Cancer Care at Home Efficient and Safe Telehealth Research Center is a National Cancer Institute-designated and funded Telehealth Research Center of Excellence poised to generate the evidence necessary to inform the appropriate use of telehealth as a strategy to improve access to cancer services that are convenient for patients. The center will evaluate telehealth as a strategy to personalize cancer care delivery to ensure that it is not only safe and effective but also convenient and efficient. In this article, we outline this new center's research strategy, as well as highlight challenges that exist in further integrating telehealth into standard oncology practice based on early experiences.

The association between telemedicine, advance care planning, and unplanned hospitalizations among high-risk patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread implementation of telemedicine, there are limited data regarding its impact on key components of care for patients with incurable or high-risk cancer. For these patients, high-quality care requires detailed conversations regarding treatment priorities (advance care planning) and clinical care to minimize unnecessary acute care (unplanned hospitalizations). Whether telemedicine affects these outcomes relative to in-person clinic visits was examined among patients with cancer at high risk for 6-month mortality.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with cancer with any tumor type treated at the University of Pennsylvania who were newly identified between April 1 and December 31, 2020, to be at high risk for 6-month mortality via a validated machine learning algorithm. Separate modified Poisson regressions were used to assess the occurrence of advance care planning and unplanned hospitalizations for telemedicine as compared to in-person visits. Additional analyses were done comparing telemedicine type (video or phone) as compared to in-person clinic visits.

RESULTS

The occurrence of advance care planning was similar between telemedicine and in-person visits (6.8% vs. 6.0%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.69). In regard to telemedicine subtype, patients exposed to video encounters were modestly more likely to have documented advance care planning in comparison to those seen in person (7.5% vs. 6.0%; aRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.03-2.11). The 3-month risk for unplanned hospitalization was comparable for telemedicine compared to in-person clinic encounters (21% vs. 18%; aRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.81-1.38).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, care delivered by telemedicine, compared to in-person clinic visits, produced comparable rates of advance care planning conversations without increasing hospitalizations, which suggests that vulnerable patients can be managed safely by telemedicine.

Clinician Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators for Delivering Early Integrated Palliative Care via Telehealth

Early integrated palliative care (EIPC) significantly improves clinical outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. Telehealth may be a useful tool to deliver EIPC sustainably and equitably. Palliative care clinicians completed a survey regarding their perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and benefits of using telehealth video visits for delivering EIPC for patients with advanced lung cancer. Forty-eight clinicians across 22 cancer centers completed the survey between May and July 2022. Most (91.7%) agreed that telehealth increases access to EIPC and simplifies the process for patients to receive EIPC (79.2%). Clinicians noted that the elderly, those in rural areas, and those with less-resourced backgrounds have greater difficulty using telehealth. Perceived barriers were largely patient-based factors, including technological literacy, internet and device availability, and patient preferences. Clinicians agreed that several organizational factors facilitated telehealth EIPC delivery, including technological infrastructure (85.4%), training (83.3%), and support from study coordinators (81.3%). Other barriers included systems-based factors, such as insurance reimbursement and out-of-state coverage restrictions. Patient-, organization-, and systems-based factors are all important to providing and improving access to telehealth EIPC services. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of telehealth EIPC and how policies and interventions may improve access to and dissemination of this care modality.

Strategies to Make Telemedicine a Friend, Not a Foe, in the Provision of Accessible and Equitable Cancer Care

Telemedicine has the potential to improve access to cancer care, particularly for patients with functional limitations, high symptom burdens, or financial or geographic constraints. However, there is also a risk that telemedicine can widen healthcare disparities among patients facing systemic disadvantages like those with technological barriers, poor digital literacy, older age, or non-English language preferences. To optimize telemedicine usage, we must implement practical strategies like video onboarding programs, user-friendly technology platforms, optimizing the clinician's environment, and best practices for using interpreters. Policy changes such as state licensing requirements, controlled substance prescribing requirements, and payment parity are also crucial. This Perspective highlights these practical strategies and policy recommendations to ensure accessible and equitable cancer care augmented by telemedicine.

The State-of-the-Art of Patient Portals: Adapting to External Factors, Addressing Barriers, and Innovating

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Recent external factors-the 21st Century Cures Act and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-have stimulated major changes in the patient portal landscape. The objective of this state-of-the-art review is to describe recent developments in the patient portal literature and to identify recommendations and future directions for the design, implementation, and evaluation of portals.

METHODS

To focus this review on salient contemporary issues, we elected to center it on four topics: (1) 21st Century Cures Act's impact on patient portals (e.g., Open Notes); (2) COVID-19's pandemic impact on portals; (3) proxy access to portals; and (4) disparities in portal adoption and use. We conducted targeted PubMed searches to identify recent empirical studies addressing these topics, used a two-part screening process to determine relevance, and conducted thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Our search identified 174 unique papers, 74 were relevant empirical studies and included in this review. Among these papers, we identified 10 themes within our four a priori topics, including preparing for and understanding the consequences of increased patient access to their electronic health information (Cures Act); developing, deploying, and evaluating new virtual care processes (COVID-19); understanding current barriers to formal proxy use (proxy access); and addressing disparities in portal adoption and use (disparities).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the recent trends toward understanding the implications of immediate access to most test results, exploring ways to close gaps in portal adoption and use among different sub-populations, and finding ways to leverage portals to improve health and health care are the next steps in the maturation of patient portals and are key areas that require more research. It is important that health care organizations share their innovative portal efforts, so that successful measures can be tested in other contexts, and progress can continue.

The Telemedicine Experience in Primary Care Practices in the United States: Insights From Practice Leaders

PURPOSE

The need to rapidly implement telemedicine in primary care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was addressed differently by various practices. Using qualitative data from semistructured interviews with primary care practice leaders, we aimed to report commonly shared experiences and unique perspectives regarding telemedicine implementation and evolution/maturation since March 2020.

METHODS

We administered a semistructured, 25-minute, virtual interview with 25 primary care practice leaders from 2 health systems in 2 states (New York and Florida) included in PCORnet, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute clinical research network. Questions were guided by 3 frameworks (health information technology evaluation, access to care, and health information technology life cycle) and involved practice leaders' perspectives on the process of telemedicine implementation in their practice, with a specific focus on the process of maturation and facilitators/barriers. Two researchers conducted inductive coding of qualitative data open-ended questions to identify common themes. Transcripts were electronically generated by virtual platform software.

RESULTS

Twenty-five interviews were administered for practice leaders representing 87 primary care practices in 2 states. We identified the following 4 major themes: (1) the ease of telemedicine adoption depended on both patients' and clinicians' prior experience using virtual health platforms, (2) regulation of telemedicine varied across states and differentially affected the rollout processes, (3) visit triage rules were unclear, and (4) there were positive and negative effects of telemedicine on clinicians and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice leaders identified several challenges to telemedicine implementation and highlighted 2 areas, including telemedicine visit triage guidelines and telemedicine-specific staffing and scheduling protocols, for improvement.

Evaluation of Inequities in Cancer Treatment Delay or Discontinuation Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection

IMPORTANCE

There is a disproportionately greater burden of COVID-19 among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black individuals, who also experience poorer cancer outcomes. Understanding individual-level and area-level factors contributing to inequities at the intersection of COVID-19 and cancer is critical.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate associations of individual-level and area-level social determinants of health (SDOH) with delayed or discontinued cancer treatment following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, registry-based cohort study used data from 4768 patients receiving cancer care who had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 and were enrolled in the American Society for Clinical Oncology COVID-19 Registry. Data were collected from April 1, 2020, to September 26, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Race and ethnicity, sex, age, and area-level SDOH based on zip codes of residence at the time of cancer diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Delayed (≥14 days) or discontinued cancer treatment (any cancer treatment, surgery, pharmacotherapy, or radiotherapy) and time (in days) to restart pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 4768 patients (2756 women [57.8%]; 1558 [32.7%] aged ≥70 years at diagnosis) were included in the analysis. There were 630 Hispanic (13.2%), 196 non-Hispanic Asian American or Pacific Islander (4.1%), 568 non-Hispanic Black (11.9%), and 3173 non-Hispanic White individuals (66.5%). Compared with non-Hispanic White individuals, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to experience a delay of at least 14 days or discontinuation of any treatment and drug-based treatment; only estimates for non-Hispanic Black individuals were statistically significant, with correction for multiple comparisons (risk ratios [RRs], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.22-1.49] and 1.37 [95% CI, 1.23-1.52], respectively). Area-level SDOH (eg, geography, proportion of residents without health insurance or with only a high school education, lower median household income) were associated with delayed or discontinued treatment. In multivariable Cox proportinal hazards regression models, estimates suggested that Hispanic (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.71-1.05]), non-Hispanic Asian American or Pacific Islander (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.46-1.35]), and non-Hispanic Black individuals (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.97]) experienced longer delays to restarting pharmacotherapy compared with non-Hispanic White individuals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that race and ethnicity and area-level SDOH were associated with delayed or discontinued cancer treatment and longer delays to the restart of drug-based therapies following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Such treatment delays could exacerbate persistent cancer survival inequities in the United States.

Telemedicine and Its Past, Present, and Future Roles in Providing Palliative Care to Advanced Cancer Patients

The landscape of healthcare delivery has considerably changed due to the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is nowhere more evident than in the care of advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care. This population is susceptible to the severe complications of COVID-19, and immediate measures had to be taken to ensure their safety. Thus, the adoption of telemedicine as a health care delivery model emerged. This model provides many benefits, such as improved access to care while maintaining social distancing; however, there exist challenges to this model, including health care disparities, reimbursement, and monitoring of opioids in high-risk populations. This narrative review provides an overview of the unique benefits and barriers of telemedicine in palliative care patients.