Patient experience with electronic health record-integrated postoperative telemedicine visits in an academic endocrine surgery program

Assessing Patient-Reported Experiences for In-Person and Telemedicine-Based Preoperative Evaluations

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed health care delivery through the rise of telehealth solutions. Though telemedicine-based care has been identified as safe and feasible in postoperative care, data on initial surgical consultations in the preoperative setting are lacking. We sought to compare patient characteristics, anticipated downstream care utilization, and patient-reported experiences (PREs) for in-person versus telemedicine-based care conducted for initial consultation encounters at a hernia and abdominal wall center. Methods: Patients evaluated at an abdominal wall reconstruction center from August 2021 to August 2022 were prospectively surveyed. Patient characteristics, anticipated downstream care utilization, and PREs were compared. Results: Of the 176 respondents, 50.6% (n = 89) utilized telemedicine-based care and had similar demographic and disease characteristics to those receiving in-person care. Telemedicine-based care saved a median of 47 min [interquartile range 20-112.5 min] of round-trip travel time per patient, with 10.1% of encounters resulting in supplemental in-person evaluation. A large proportion of telemedicine-based and in-person encounters resulted in recommendations for operative intervention, 38.2% versus 55.2%, respectively. Indirect costs of care were significantly lower for patients utilizing telemedicine-based services. Patient satisfaction related to encounters was non-inferior to in-person care. Overall, the majority of patients responded that they preferred future care to be delivered via telemedicine-based services, if offered. Conclusions: Preoperative telemedicine-based care was associated with significant cost-savings over in-person care related with comparable patient satisfaction. Health systems should continue to dedicate resources to optimizing and expanding perioperative telemedicine capabilities.

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes of virtual care during COVID-19: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The onset of COVID-19 has caused an international upheaval of traditional in-person approaches to care delivery. Rapid system-level transitions to virtual care provision restrict the ability of healthcare professionals to evaluate care quality from the patient's perspective. This poses challenges to ensuring that patient-centered care is upheld within virtual environments. To address this, the study's objective was to review how virtual care has impacted patient experiences and outcomes during COVID-19, through the use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs), respectively.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate patient responsiveness to virtual care during COVID-19. Using an exhaustive search strategy, relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and 2022 were pulled from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychInfo databases. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A patient partner was consulted throughout the study to provide feedback and co-conduct the review.

RESULTS

After removing duplicates, 6048 articles underwent title and abstract review, from which 644 studies were included in the full-text review stage. Following this, 102 articles were included in the study. Studies were published in 20 different countries, were predominantly cross-sectional, and reported on the delivery of virtual care in specialized adult outpatient settings. This review identified 29 validated PREMs and 43 PROMs. Several advantages to virtual care were identified, with patients citing greater convenience, (such as saving travel time and cost, less waiting experienced to see care providers) and increased protection from viral spread. Some studies also reported challenges patients and caregivers faced with virtual care, including feeling rushed during the virtual care appointment, lack of physical contact or examination presenting barriers, difficulty with communicating symptoms, and technology issues.

CONCLUSION

This review provides supportive evidence of virtual care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic from patient and caregiver perspectives. This research provides a comprehensive overview of what patient-reported measures can be used to record virtual care quality amid and following the pandemic. Further research into healthcare professionals' perspectives would offer a supportive lens toward a strong person-centered healthcare system.

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.

Disparities in Treatment for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Purpose: Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) have been described. This review includes the most recent literature on existing diagnostic and treatment disparities in the United States and proposes practical clinical and policy ideas for improving the gap in the treatment of DTC. Methodology: We performed a comprehensive literature review to include key articles related to DTC and disparities of treatment, diagnosis, and outcomes for disadvantaged patient populations. Results: Vulnerable patient populations with DTC have been extensively studied, and the literature shows that clear disparities of diagnosis and treatment exist. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, uninsured, rural, elderly, and patients belonging to minoritized racial and ethnic groups are more likely to present with advanced disease at presentation. These same vulnerable patient populations are less likely to have access to high-volume surgeons, less likely to be treated according to guidelines, and receive less aggressive treatment (such as radioactive iodine) compared with white patients. Further, these patients experience financial toxicity more so than their counterparts. Conclusions: Disparities of care exist for certain vulnerable patient populations with DTC. Approaches to rectify these should be multipronged and involve improving access to high-volume specialists with ongoing use of telehealth consults, language concordant care, an emphasis on guideline-directed therapies, ensuring continuity of care and long-term follow-up with better community partnerships, engage diverse patients in national guideline-writing committees of prominent societies and reducing the financial burden of cancer treatments at the state and national policy level.

Bedside vs webside: Assessing patient-reported experiences for in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative evaluations

BACKGROUND

Though telemedicine has been identified as safe and feasible, data on patient reported experiences (PREs) are lacking. We sought to compare PREs between in-person and telemedicine-based perioperative care.

METHODS

Patients evaluated from August-November 2021 were prospectively surveyed to assess experiences and satisfaction with care rendered during in-person and telemedicine-based encounters. Patient and hernia characteristics, encounter related plans, and PREs were compared between in-person and telemedicine-based care.

RESULTS

Of 109 respondents (86% response rate), 55% (n = 60) utilized telemedicine-based perioperative care. Indirect costs were lower for patients using telemedicine-based services, including work absence (3% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), lost wages (0% vs. 14%, P = 0.003), and requirements for hotel accommodations (0% vs. 12%, P = 0.007). PREs related to telemedicine-based care were non-inferior to in-person care across all measured domains (P > 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine-based care yields significant cost-savings over in-person care with similar patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that systems should focus on optimization of perioperative telemedicine services.

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.

Oncology patients' communication experiences during COVID-19: comparing telehealth consultations to in-person visits

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic created significant disruptions in cancer care, much of which was transitioned to telehealth. Because telehealth alters the way clinicians and patients interact with one another, this investigation examined patients' perceptions of their communication with clinicians during the pandemic.

METHOD

Patients were recruited from the Cancer Support Community, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and a market research firm to participate in an online survey. In addition to demographic and health-related information, respondents completed measures of patient-centered communication and evaluated how their communication in telehealth sessions compared with in-person visits.

RESULTS

From October to December 2020, 227 respondents (65.6% female, 64.6% Non-Hispanic White, 33.5% had 6 or more telehealth sessions, 55% were 50 or older) reported having some of their cancer care provided via telehealth. Respondents who were of racial/ethnic minorities, male, had more telehealth sessions, or had poorer mental health reported less patient-centered communication with clinicians. Most patients thought communication in telehealth sessions was "about the same" as in-person visits with respect to good communication (59%). However, patients thinking communication in telehealth sessions was "better" than in-person visits were more likely to be Hispanic (49%), Non-Hispanic Black (41%), under 50 years of age (32%), male (40%), and had more telehealth sessions (34%).

CONCLUSION

Respondents reporting less patient-centered communication during the pandemic-e.g., persons of racial/ethnic minorities and males-were also more likely to evaluate communication in telehealth sessions as better than in-person visits. Further research is needed to understand reasons underlying this finding. Cancer care clinicians should take into account patient preferences regarding telehealth care, which may be particularly important for racial and ethnic minority patients.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of endocrine surgery

Background

This study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on endocrine surgeons.

Methods

A survey on the professional, educational, and clinical impact was sent to active and corresponding members of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) in September 2020. Chi-square and paired t-test were used for analysis.

Results

77 surgeons responded (14.8 %). All reported suspension of elective surgeries; 37.7 % were reassigned to other duties during this time. The median number of cases backlogged was 30 (IQR 15–50). Most surgeons reported decreased clinical volume (74.6 %). The use of virtual platforms for clinical and educational purposes increased from pre-COVID-19 levels (all p < 0.001). Use of in-office procedures (p < 0.001) and length of observation prior to discharge for thyroid surgery (p < 0.05) decreased.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic led to suspension of operations and decreased practice volume for endocrine surgeons. Surgeons increased use of virtual platforms, decreased in-office procedures, and decreased duration of observation for thyroid surgery in response.