Endocrine Surgery Patients' and Providers' Perceptions of Telemedicine in the COVID Era

Who Serves Where: A Geospatial Analysis of Access to Endocrine Surgeons in the United States and Puerto Rico

BACKGROUND

The association between surgical volume and patient outcome is well established, with higher case volume associated with a lower risk of complications. We hypothesized that the geographic distribution of endocrine/head and neck surgeons with an endocrine focus in the United States and Puerto Rico may limit access to many potential patients, particularly in rural areas.

METHODS

We used web-based directories from the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, American Head and Neck Society, and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery to identify endocrine surgery specialists in the United States and Puerto Rico. Using geographic coordinates and OpenStreetMap and Valhalla software, we calculated the areas within a 60-, 90-, or 120-minute driving distance from specialist offices. We used 2020 U.S. Census Data to calculate census tract populations inside or outside the accessible areas.

RESULTS

Excluding duplicate providers across organizations, we geocoded 603 specialist addresses in the United States and Puerto. We found that 23.76% (78.3 million) of Americans do not have access to a society-affiliated endocrine/head and neck surgeon with an endocrine focus within a 60-minute drive, 14.37% (47.4 million) within a 90-minute drive, and 8.38% (27.6 million) within a 120-minute drive. We observed that the areas of coverage are primarily focused on metropolitan areas.

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-third of Americans do not have access to a society-affiliated endocrine/head and neck surgeon with an endocrine focus within a 1-hour drive, highlighting a concerning geographic barrier to care. Further work is needed to facilitate patient access and mitigate disparities in quality care.

Telemedicine Clinics in General and Colorectal Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient-Reported Outcomes

Introduction Telemedicine was introduced in place of face-to-face clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic to limit exposure and spread of the virus. This was an immediate transformation to surgical practice without prior training. Concerns were raised about whether this fulfilled the patient's expectations. In this study, we investigated patients' perspectives and feedback about surgical telemedicine clinics. We also investigated factors that may have influenced patient feedback. Methods We undertook a retrospective qualitative study between June and August 2020 at the Darent Valley Hospital, England, United Kingdom. A well-structured 5-point questionnaire was designed to capture patients' experiences with the help of non-medical volunteers. Patients were invited to participate, either online or through direct telephone calls. Ancillary data, such as demographics, previous visits, and the physician's grade, was also collected. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare variables. Results A total of 198 patients completed the questionnaire (online = 67, telephone = 133, median age 59 years, IQR 44-79, male: female = 1). A rating from 'good to excellent' for 'overall experience', 'opportunity to express concerns', and 'doctors consultation' was given by 90%, 93%, and 89.4%, respectively. About 79.8% felt reassured. Given the option, 63% would prefer face-to-face consultation in the future. Telemedicine clinics led by consultant surgeons had statistically significantly better ratings than junior grades. Conclusion This is the first study investigating patients' experiences of telemedicine in general and colorectal surgery. A high proportion of patients rated a satisfactory experience and felt reassured. The majority of patients would still prefer face-to-face consultations in the future. Based on the results of the current study, we would recommend the integration of telemedicine into future secondary care provision in general and colorectal surgery.

Shared Decision-Making in General Surgery: Prospective Comparison of Telemedicine vs In-Person Visits

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated a shift toward virtual telemedicine appointments with surgeons. While this form of healthcare delivery has potential benefits for both patients and surgeons, the quality of these interactions remains largely unstudied. We hypothesize that telemedicine visits are associated with lower quality of shared decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a mixed-methods, prospective, observational cohort trial. All patients presenting for a first-time visit at general surgery clinics between May 2021 and June 2022 were included. Patients were categorized by type of visit: in-person vs telemedicine. The primary outcome was the level of shared decision-making as captured by top box scores of the CollaboRATE measure. Secondary outcomes included quality of shared decision-making as captured by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and satisfaction with consultation survey. An adjusted analysis was performed accounting for potential confounders. A qualitative analysis of open-ended questions for both patients and practitioners was performed.

RESULTS

During a 13-month study period, 387 patients were enrolled, of which 301 (77.8%) underwent in-person visits and 86 (22.2%) underwent telemedicine visits. The groups were similar in age, sex, employment, education, and generic quality-of-life scores. In an adjusted analysis, a visit type of telemedicine was not associated with either the CollaboRATE top box score (odds ratio 1.27; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.20) or 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (β -0.60; p = 0.76). Similarly, there was no difference in other outcomes. Themes from qualitative patient and surgeon responses included physical presence, time investment, appropriateness for visit purpose, technical difficulties, and communication quality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, prospective study, there does not appear to be a difference in quality of shared decision making in patients undergoing in-person vs telemedicine appointments.

Limited disease progression in endocrine surgery patients with treatment delays due to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the delivery of care and timing of elective surgical procedures. Most endocrine-related operations were considered elective and safe to postpone, providing a unique opportunity to assess clinical outcomes under protracted treatment plans.

METHODS

American Association of Endocrine Surgeon members were surveyed for participation. A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was developed and distributed to 27 institutions to assess the impact of COVID-19-related delays. The information collected included patient demographics, primary diagnosis, resumption of care, and assessment of disease progression by the surgeon.

RESULTS

Twelve out of 27 institutions completed the survey (44.4%). Of 850 patients, 74.8% (636) were female; median age was 56 (interquartile range, 44-66) years. Forty percent (34) of patients had not been seen since their original surgical appointment was delayed; 86.2% (733) of patients had a delay in care with women more likely to have a delay (87.6% vs 82.2% of men, χ² = 3.84, P = .05). Median duration of delay was 70 (interquartile range, 42-118) days. Among patients with a delay in care, primary disease site included thyroid (54.2%), parathyroid (37.2%), adrenal (6.5%), and pancreatic/gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (1.3%). In addition, 4.0% (26) of patients experienced disease progression and 4.1% (24) had a change from the initial operative plan. The duration of delay was not associated with disease progression (P = .96) or a change in operative plan (P = .66).

CONCLUSION

Although some patients experienced disease progression during COVID-19 delays to endocrine disease-related care, most patients with follow-up did not. Our analysis indicated that temporary delay may be an acceptable course of action in extreme circumstances for most endocrine-related surgical disease.

Demographic Disparity in Use of Telemedicine for Ambulatory General Surgical Consultation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of the Initial Public Health Emergency and Second Phase Periods

BACKGROUND

Surgical patients with limited digital literacy may experience reduced telemedicine access. We investigated racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in telemedicine compared with in-person surgical consultation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of new visits within the Division of General & Gastrointestinal Surgery at an academic medical center occurring between March 24 through June 23, 2020 (Phase I, Massachusetts Public Health Emergency) and June 24 through December 31, 2020 (Phase II, relaxation of restrictions on healthcare operations) was performed. Visit modality (telemedicine/phone vs in-person) and demographic data were extracted. Bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and visit modality.

RESULTS

During Phase I, 347 in-person and 638 virtual visits were completed. Multivariable modeling demonstrated no significant differences in virtual compared with in-person visit use across racial/ethnic or insurance groups. Among patients using virtual visits, Latinx patients were less likely to have video compared with audio-only visits than White patients (OR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.96). Black race and insurance type were not significant predictors of video use. During Phase II, 2,922 in-person and 1,001 virtual visits were completed. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that Black patients (OR, 1.52; 95% CI 1.12-2.06) were more likely to have virtual visits than White patients. No significant differences were observed across insurance types. Among patients using virtual visits, race/ethnicity and insurance type were not significant predictors of video use.

CONCLUSION

Black patients used telemedicine platforms more often than White patients during the second phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual consultation may help increase access to surgical care among traditionally under-resourced populations.