Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities

Purpose: This study aimed to report our initial experience with weekly tele-video “virtual” on-treatment visits (vOTVs), describe the logistics of implementation, report the results of patient and physician surveys, and discuss the barriers, limitations, and benefits of vOTVs during the COVID-19 pan...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kevin S. Roof, MD, Jerome M. Butler, Jr., MD, Vipul V. Thakkar, MD, Robert M. Doline, MD, Jeffrey G. Kuremsky, MD, John B. Konefal, MD, Robert J. McCammon, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-01-01
Series:Advances in Radiation Oncology
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109420302682
id doaj-8a4d2d80b2814bd8baa748bd4fc9f0e3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8a4d2d80b2814bd8baa748bd4fc9f0e32021-02-15T04:14:18ZengElsevierAdvances in Radiation Oncology2452-10942021-01-0161100579Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and OpportunitiesKevin S. Roof, MD0Jerome M. Butler, Jr., MD1Vipul V. Thakkar, MD2Robert M. Doline, MD3Jeffrey G. Kuremsky, MD4John B. Konefal, MD5Robert J. McCammon, MD6Corresponding author: Kevin S. Roof, MD; Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, P.A, Charlotte, North CarolinaSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, P.A, Charlotte, North CarolinaSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, P.A, Charlotte, North CarolinaSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, P.A, Charlotte, North CarolinaSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, P.A, Charlotte, North CarolinaSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, P.A, Charlotte, North CarolinaSoutheast Radiation Oncology Group, P.A, Charlotte, North CarolinaPurpose: This study aimed to report our initial experience with weekly tele-video “virtual” on-treatment visits (vOTVs), describe the logistics of implementation, report the results of patient and physician surveys, and discuss the barriers, limitations, and benefits of vOTVs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and materials: vOTVs were piloted at 2 centers and within 1 week were expanded to 4 additional centers. Patients participating in vOTVs were surveyed about their satisfaction with vOTVs, the quality of vOTVs, and confidence in their physician’s ability to manage their care through vOTVs, as well as their support of and preferences related to vOTVs. Participating physicians were surveyed about their comfort and satisfaction with vOTVs. Medical directors at nonparticipating centers within our network were surveyed regarding their reasoning for not using vOTVs. Results: In week 1, 72 of 81 patients between 2 pilot centers were seen using vOTVs. In week 2, 189 of 211 patients were seen using vOTVs at 6 centers. Patient satisfaction with and confidence in their physician’s ability to address their concerns through the vOTV was high at 4.75 on a 5-point scale. Patients were overall very supportive (4.67) and found the quality of the visits to be as good as or better than their prior in-person weekly on-treatment visit (3.75). Physicians participating in the vOTVs felt very comfortable in their ability to manage patients through this platform (5.0) and on average did not report any difference in terms of efficiency of visits (3.0). Conclusions: vOTVs were easy to implement and well received by patients and participating physicians. Our experience suggests that vOTVs can be implemented rapidly using available technology and with a high degree of patient and physician satisfaction during this pandemic with similar efficiency to in-person on-treatment visits.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109420302682
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kevin S. Roof, MD
Jerome M. Butler, Jr., MD
Vipul V. Thakkar, MD
Robert M. Doline, MD
Jeffrey G. Kuremsky, MD
John B. Konefal, MD
Robert J. McCammon, MD
spellingShingle Kevin S. Roof, MD
Jerome M. Butler, Jr., MD
Vipul V. Thakkar, MD
Robert M. Doline, MD
Jeffrey G. Kuremsky, MD
John B. Konefal, MD
Robert J. McCammon, MD
Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities
Advances in Radiation Oncology
author_facet Kevin S. Roof, MD
Jerome M. Butler, Jr., MD
Vipul V. Thakkar, MD
Robert M. Doline, MD
Jeffrey G. Kuremsky, MD
John B. Konefal, MD
Robert J. McCammon, MD
author_sort Kevin S. Roof, MD
title Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities
title_short Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities
title_full Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities
title_fullStr Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities
title_full_unstemmed Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities
title_sort virtual on-treatment visits: implementation, patient perspectives, barriers, limitations, benefits, and opportunities
publisher Elsevier
series Advances in Radiation Oncology
issn 2452-1094
publishDate 2021-01-01
description Purpose: This study aimed to report our initial experience with weekly tele-video “virtual” on-treatment visits (vOTVs), describe the logistics of implementation, report the results of patient and physician surveys, and discuss the barriers, limitations, and benefits of vOTVs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and materials: vOTVs were piloted at 2 centers and within 1 week were expanded to 4 additional centers. Patients participating in vOTVs were surveyed about their satisfaction with vOTVs, the quality of vOTVs, and confidence in their physician’s ability to manage their care through vOTVs, as well as their support of and preferences related to vOTVs. Participating physicians were surveyed about their comfort and satisfaction with vOTVs. Medical directors at nonparticipating centers within our network were surveyed regarding their reasoning for not using vOTVs. Results: In week 1, 72 of 81 patients between 2 pilot centers were seen using vOTVs. In week 2, 189 of 211 patients were seen using vOTVs at 6 centers. Patient satisfaction with and confidence in their physician’s ability to address their concerns through the vOTV was high at 4.75 on a 5-point scale. Patients were overall very supportive (4.67) and found the quality of the visits to be as good as or better than their prior in-person weekly on-treatment visit (3.75). Physicians participating in the vOTVs felt very comfortable in their ability to manage patients through this platform (5.0) and on average did not report any difference in terms of efficiency of visits (3.0). Conclusions: vOTVs were easy to implement and well received by patients and participating physicians. Our experience suggests that vOTVs can be implemented rapidly using available technology and with a high degree of patient and physician satisfaction during this pandemic with similar efficiency to in-person on-treatment visits.
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109420302682
work_keys_str_mv AT kevinsroofmd virtualontreatmentvisitsimplementationpatientperspectivesbarrierslimitationsbenefitsandopportunities
AT jeromembutlerjrmd virtualontreatmentvisitsimplementationpatientperspectivesbarrierslimitationsbenefitsandopportunities
AT vipulvthakkarmd virtualontreatmentvisitsimplementationpatientperspectivesbarrierslimitationsbenefitsandopportunities
AT robertmdolinemd virtualontreatmentvisitsimplementationpatientperspectivesbarrierslimitationsbenefitsandopportunities
AT jeffreygkuremskymd virtualontreatmentvisitsimplementationpatientperspectivesbarrierslimitationsbenefitsandopportunities
AT johnbkonefalmd virtualontreatmentvisitsimplementationpatientperspectivesbarrierslimitationsbenefitsandopportunities
AT robertjmccammonmd virtualontreatmentvisitsimplementationpatientperspectivesbarrierslimitationsbenefitsandopportunities
_version_ 1724269202374656000