Assessing the Validity of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Measure in Identifying Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits by Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented chemotherapy measures (OP-35) to reduce potentially preventable emergency department visits (PPEDVs) and hospitalizations. This study evaluated the validity of the OP-35 measure in identifying PPEDVs among patients with cancer. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, which used data from the 2012-2022 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. ED visits are assessed and compared on the basis of three measures: immediacy using Emergency Severity Index (ESI), disposition (discharge v hospitalization), and OP-35 criteria. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2022, a weighted sample of 46,723,524 ED visits were made by patients with cancer. Among reported ESI cases, 25.2% (8,346,443) was high urgency. In addition, 30.3% (14,135,496) of ED visits among patients with cancer led to hospitalizations. Using the OP-35 measure, it was found that 20.85% (9,743,977) was PPEDVs. A 21.9% (10,232,102) discrepancy between discharge diagnosis (CMS billing codes) and chief complaints was identified. Further analysis showed that 19.2% (1,872,556) of potentially preventable ED visits (CMS OP-35) were high urgency and 32.6% (3,181,280) resulted in hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The CMS approach to identifying PPEDVs has limitations. First, it may overcount preventable visits by including high-urgency or hospitalization-requiring cases. Second, relying on final diagnoses for retrospective preventability judgment can be misleading as they may not reflect the initial reason for the visit. In addition, differentiating causes for ED visits in patients with cancer undergoing various treatments is challenging as the approach does not distinguish between chemotherapy-related complications and others. Identification inconsistencies arise because of varying coding practices and chosen preventable conditions, lacking consensus and alignment with specific hospital or patient needs. Finally, the model fails to consider crucial nonclinical factors like social support, economic barriers, and alternative care access, potentially unfairly penalizing hospitals serving underserved populations.

Telemedicine Adoption in an NCI-Designated Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Report on Patient Experience of Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer require timely access to care so that healthcare providers can prepare an optimal treatment plan with significant implications for quality of life and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred rapid adoption of telemedicine in oncology, but study of patient experience of care with telemedicine in this population has been limited. We assessed overall patient experience of care with telemedicine at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic and examined changes in patient experience over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of outpatient oncology patients who received treatment at Moffitt Cancer Center. Press Ganey surveys were used to assess patient experience. Data from patients with appointments between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed. Patient experience was compared between telemedicine and in-person visits, and patient experience with telemedicine over time was described. RESULTS: A total of 33,318 patients reported Press Ganey data for in-person visits, and 5,950 reported Press Ganey data for telemedicine visits. Relative to patients with in-person visits, more patients with telemedicine visits gave higher satisfaction ratings for access (62.5% vs 75.8%, respectively) and care provider concern (84.2% vs 90.7%, respectively) (P<.001). When adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, insurance, and clinic type, telemedicine visits consistently outperformed in-person visits over time regarding access and care provider concern (P<.001). There were no significant changes over time in satisfaction with telemedicine visits regarding access, care provider concern, telemedicine technology, or overall assessment (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a large oncology dataset showed that telemedicine resulted in better patient experience of care in terms of access and care provider concern compared with in-person visits. Patient experience of care with telemedicine visits did not change over time, suggesting that implementing telemedicine was effective.

Financial toxicity among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study.

Objectives: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients experience greater financial toxicity than other cancer patients. Research on financial toxicity has concentrated on patients despite many informal caregivers sharing finances and reducing work hours to provide patient care. Thus, our pilot study: (1) assessed the feasibility of financial toxicity screening of HNC patients and their caregivers, and (2) described financial toxicity levels of HNC patients and their caregivers. Methods: We surveyed English-speaking adult HNC patients initiating treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and their informal caregivers. This survey assessed demographics and financial toxicity through the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure (0-44 range; lower score indicates higher financial toxicity). Screening feasibility was defined as ≥50% consent rate and ≥60% data completion rate. Results: Our sample included 27 HNC patients and 9 caregivers. They both had slightly lower consent and completion rates than our goals. Patients reported a median COST score of 27 while caregivers reported a median COST score of 16. Approximately 25.9% of patients and 44.4% of caregivers reported high financial toxicity (COST < 17.5). Caregivers reported high concerns about their future financial health and their ability to control the amount of their financial contributions to the patient's care. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers may require additional outreach approaches beyond emailed questionnaires to screen for their financial toxicity systematically. Future research is needed to replicate our results to determine whether differences in financial toxicity occur between patients and caregivers and identify areas of focus for interventions. Level of evidence: IV.

Patient and caregiver experience with telehealth for surgical cancer care: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to telemedicine adoption for many medical specialties, including surgical cancer care. To date, the evidence for patient experience of telemedicine among patients with cancer undergoing surgery is limited to quantitative surveys. Thus, this study qualitatively assessed the patient and caregiver experience of telehealth visits for surgical cancer care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 patients with cancer and three caregivers who had completed a telehealth visit for preanesthesia or postoperative visits. Interviews covered visit descriptions, overall satisfaction, system experience, visit quality, what roles caregivers had, and thoughts on what types of surgery-related visits would be appropriate through telehealth versus in-person. RESULTS: Telehealth delivery for surgical cancer care was generally viewed positively. Multiple factors influenced the patient experience, including prior experience with telemedicine, ease of scheduling visits, smooth connection experiences, having access to technical support, high communication quality, and visit thoroughness. Participants identified use cases on telehealth for surgical cancer care, including postoperative visits for uncomplicated surgical procedures and educational visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences with telehealth for surgical care are influenced by smooth system experiences, high-quality patient-clinician communications, and a patient-centered focus. Interventions are needed to optimize telehealth delivery (e.g., improve telemedicine platform usability).

Implementing Digital Scribes to Reduce Electronic Health Record Documentation Burden Among Cancer Care Clinicians: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To address shortcomings of human scribes (eg, turnover), clinicians are considering digital scribes (DSs). To our knowledge, to date, no study has assessed DS implementation or clinician user experience in cancer centers. We assessed the DS's feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, usability and its preliminary association on clinician well-being in a cancer center. We also identified implementation facilitators and barriers to DS use. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study design, we implemented a DS at a cancer center. Data collection included surveys at baseline and 1 month after DS use and a semistructured interview with clinicians. The survey assessed demographics, Mini Z (workplace stress and burnout), sleep quality, and implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and usability). The interview assessed how the DS was used and its impacts on workflows and recommendations for future implementations of the DS. We used paired t tests to assess differences in Mini Z and sleep quality measures over time. RESULTS: Across nine survey responses and eight interviews, we found that although feasibility scores were slightly lower than our cutoff point (15.2 v 16.0), clinicians rated the DS as marginally acceptable (16.0) and appropriate (16.3). Usability was considered marginally usable (68.6 v 68.0). Although the DS did not significantly improve burnout (3.6 v 3.9, P = .081), it improved perceptions of having sufficient documentation time (2.1 v 3.6, P = .005). Clinicians identified suggestions for future implementations, including training needs and usability improvements. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary findings suggest that DS implementation is marginally acceptable, appropriate, and usable among cancer care clinicians. Individualized training and on-site support may improve implementation.

Estimated Indirect Cost Savings of Using Telehealth Among Nonelderly Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Patients with cancer typically have greater financial hardships and time costs than individuals without cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this, while posing substantial challenges to delivering cancer care and resulting in important changes in care-delivery models, including the rapid adoption of telehealth. Objective: To estimate patient travel, time, and cost savings associated with telehealth for cancer care delivery. Design, Setting, and Participants: An economic evaluation of cost savings from completed telehealth visits from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, in a single-institution National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All patients aged 18 to 65 years who completed telehealth visits within the designated time frame and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record were included in the study cohort. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was estimated patient cost savings from telehealth, which included 2 components: costs of travel (defined as roundtrip distance saved from car travel) and potential loss of productivity due to the medical visit (defined as loss of income from roundtrip travel plus loss of income from in-person clinic visits). Two different models with a combination of 2 different mileage rates ($0.56 and $0.82 per mile) and census tract-level median hourly wages were used. Results: The study included 25 496 telehealth visits with 11 688 patients. There were 4525 (3795 patients) new or established visits and 20 971 (10 049 patients) follow-up visits. Median (IQR) age was 55.0 (46.0-61.0) years among the telehealth visits, with 15 663 visits (61.4%) by women and 18 360 visits (72.0%) by Hispanic non-White patients. According to cost models, the estimated mean (SD) total cost savings ranged from $147.4 ($120.1) at $0.56/mile to $186.1 ($156.9) at $0.82/mile. For new or established visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit ranged from $176.6 ($136.3) at $0.56/mile to $222.8 ($177.4) at $0.82/mile, and for follow-up visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit was $141.1 ($115.3) at $0.56/mile to $178.1 ($150.9) at $0.82/mile. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, telehealth was associated with savings in patients time and travel costs, which may reduce the financial toxicity of cancer care. Expansion of telehealth oncology services may be an effective strategy to reduce the financial burden among patients with cancer.

Estimated Carbon Emissions Savings With Shifts From In-Person Visits to Telemedicine for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: While the health care community advocates broadly for climate change policy, medical professionals can look within care practices to assess their contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and provide solutions wherever possible. Telemedicine can help in mitigating climate change by providing care from a distance. Objective: To assess the carbon savings achieved from telemedicine visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits was conducted at a single-institution National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer center. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and above, completed telemedicine visits from April 1, 2020, to June 20, 2021, and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record. Groups were divided between those within driving time of 60 minutes (1-way) to the cancer center vs those living beyond 60 minutes of drive time. Data were analyzed between April 2020 and June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Carbon emission savings from telemedicine, measured in total and average per-visit savings. Results: A total 49 329 telemedicine visits with 23 228 patients were conducted from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. A total 21 489 visits were for patients with driving time of 60 minutes or less (median [IQR] age, 62.0 [52.0-71.0] years; 12 334 [57.4%] female; 1685 [7.8%] Black, 1500 [7.0%] Hispanic, 16 010 [74.5%] non-Hispanic White), while 27 840 visits were for patients with driving time greater than 60 minutes (median [IQR] age, 67.0 [57.0-74.0] years; 14 372 [51.6%] female; 1056 [3.8%] Black, 1364 [5.0%] Hispanic, 22 457 [80.7%] non-Hispanic White). For patients living within a driving time of 60 minutes from the cancer center, 424 471 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean [SD] emissions savings, 19.8 [9.4] kg CO2 per visit) due to telemedicine-equivalent to 91.5 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year. For patients whose driving distance was greater than 60 minutes, 2 744 248 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean emissions savings, 98.6 [54.8] kg CO2 per visit)-equivalent to 591 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large data set, this cross-sectional analysis highlighted the carbon emissions savings due to telemedicine in oncology. This has important implications in reducing health care-related carbon footprint.

Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Cancer in the US.

Importance: An initial step to reducing emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer is to identify the characteristics of patients visiting the ED and examine which of those visits could be prevented. Objective: To explore nationwide trends and characteristics of ED visits and examine factors associated with potentially preventable ED visits and unplanned hospitalizations among patients with cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019; US Cancer Statistics reports were used to estimate new cancer cases each year. Frequencies and trends among 35 510 014 ED visits by adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with cancer were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was potentially preventable ED visits, and secondary outcomes were unplanned hospitalizations and the immediacy of the ED visits. Potentially preventable ED visits were identified using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition. The Emergency Severity Index, a triage algorithm that ranks patients based on the urgency of their health care condition, was used to measure the immediacy of ED visits (immediate [most urgent], emergent, urgent, less urgent, and nonurgent), with the categories of immediate and emergent classified as high acuity. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate trends in ED visits among patients with cancer over time. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations of patient, hospital, and temporal factors with potentially preventable ED use and ED use resulting in hospitalization. Results: Among 854 911 106 ED visits, 35 510 014 (4.2%) were made by patients with cancer (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [16.2] years); of those, 55.2% of visits were among women, 73.2% were among non-Hispanic White individuals, 89.8% were among patients living in a private residence, and 54.3% were among Medicare enrollees. A total of 18 316 373 ED visits (51.6%) were identified as potentially preventable, and 5 770 571 visits (21.3%) were classified as high acuity. From 2012 to 2019, potentially preventable ED visits increased from 1 851 692 to 3 214 276. Pain (36.9%) was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits. The number of patients who visited an ED because of pain increased from 1 192 197 in 2012 to 2 405 849 in 2019 (a 101.8% increase). Overall, 28.9% of ED visits resulted in unplanned hospitalizations, which did not change significantly over time (from 32.2% in 2012 to 26.6% in 2019; P = .78 for trend). Factors such as residence in a nursing home (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.25-2.41) were positively associated with having a potentially preventable ED visit, and factors such as the presence of more than 1 comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.43-2.32) were positively associated with having an unplanned hospitalization. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 51.6% of ED visits among patients with cancer were identified as potentially preventable, and the absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits increased substantially between 2012 and 2019. These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings.

Clinical trial knowledge among U.S. adults aged 65 years and up: Findings from a 2020 national survey.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are underrepresented in most clinical trials. As the United States observes growth in the number of older adults over time, it will be critical to include them in clinical trials to improve the generalizability of results across age groups. Although clinical trial participation requires clinical trial knowledge, no study has assessed clinical trial knowledge among older adults. Using a national survey, this study aims to identify the prevalence and determinants of clinical trial knowledge among older adults. METHODS: We used the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey for secondary data analysis. We restricted the sample to older adults (aged 65 years and up). Our outcome variable was whether respondents reported having any clinical trial knowledge. We controlled for demographics, social determinants of health, healthcare utilization, and comorbidities through multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Using a weighted sample of 27,574,958 adults, we estimated that 61.1% of older adults reported having at least some knowledge of clinical trials. After controlling for other factors, those with one to two (OR = 1.80, 95% CI:1.14-2.84) or three to five (OR = 2.93, 95% CI:1.74-4.95) portal visits compared with no portal visits, those with cancer (OR = 1.92, 95% CI:1.22-3.02), and those with depression (OR = 2.27, 95% CI:1.23-4.20) had greater odds of having clinical trial knowledge. Inversely, those with hypertension (OR = 0.62, 95% CI:0.42-0.92) had lower odds of clinical trial knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Patient portal recruitment may be a supplemental intervention to improve clinical trial knowledge among older adults. Further research on additional interventions for identifying eligible participants is needed to minimize the burden among clinicians amidst other competing demands during clinic visits.

Health insurance literacy among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study.

Objective: Health insurance literacy interventions may reduce financial burden and its effects on cancer patients and their caregivers. However, little is known about the health insurance literacy levels of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their caregivers. We assessed the feasibility of screening for health insurance literacy in a pilot study and described the health insurance literacy levels of HNC patients and their caregivers. Methods: We administered a survey that assessed demographics and subjective and objective health insurance literacy to HNC patients and their caregivers. Subjective health insurance literacy was measured through the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (score range: 0-84). Objective health insurance literacy was measured through correct answers to a previously developed 10-question knowledge test. Due to a small sample size, inferential statistics were not used; we instead descriptively reported findings. Results: The pilot included 48 HNC patients and 13 caregivers. About 44.4% of patients and 30.8% of caregivers demonstrated low health insurance literacy (HILM ≤60). On the 10-item knowledge test, patients had an average of 6.8 (SD: 2.3) correct responses and caregivers had 7.8 (SD: 1.1) correct responses. Calculating out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network services was challenging; only 9.5% of patients and 0% of caregivers answered correctly. Conclusion: Additional outreach strategies may be needed to supplement screening for health insurance literacy. Areas of focus for interventions include improving understanding of how to calculate financial responsibility for health care services and filing an appeal for health insurance claim denial. Level of Evidence: IV.

Cancer Screening Among Rural and Urban Clinics During COVID-19: A Multistate Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The effects of COVID-19 have been understudied in rural areas. This study sought to (1) identify cancer screening barriers and facilitators during the pandemic in rural and urban primary care practices, (2) describe implementation strategies to support cancer screening, and (3) provide recommendations. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted (N = 42) with primary care staff across 20 sites. Individual interviews were conducted through videoconference from August 2020 to April 2021 and recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding (hybrid approach) in NVivo 12 Plus. Practices included federally qualified health centers, tribal health centers, rural health clinics, hospital/health system-owned clinics, and academic medical centers across 10 states including urban (55%) and rural (45%) sites. Staff included individuals serving in the dual role of health care provider and administrator (21.4%), health care administrator (23.8%), physician (19.0%), advanced practice provider (11.9%), or resident (23.8%). The interviews assessed perceptions about cancer screening barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, and future recommendations. RESULTS: Participants reported multilevel barriers to cancer screening including policy-level (eg, elective procedure delays), organizational (eg, backlogs), and individual (eg, patient cancellation). Several facilitators to screening were noted, such as home-based testing, using telehealth, and strong partnerships with referral sites. Practices used strategies to encourage screening, such as incentivizing patients and providers and expanding outreach. Rural clinics reported challenges with backlogs, staffing, telehealth implementation, and patient outreach. CONCLUSION: Primary care staff used innovative strategies during the pandemic to promote cancer screening. Unresolved challenges (eg, backlogs and inability to implement telehealth) disproportionately affected rural clinics.

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care. RESULTS: Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

Prevalence and Factors Associated with Patient-Requested Corrections to the Medical Record through Use of a Patient Portal: Findings from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Providing patients with medical records access is one strategy that health systems can utilize to reduce medical errors. However, how often patients request corrections to their records on a national scale is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop population-level estimates of patients who request corrections to their medical records using national-level data. We also identified patient-level correlates of requesting corrections. METHODS: We used the 2017 and 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey and examined all patient portal adopters. We applied jackknife replicate weights to develop population-representative estimates of the prevalence of requesting medical record corrections. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify correlates of requesting corrections while controlling for demographic factors, health care utilization patterns, health status, technology/internet use patterns, and year. RESULTS: Across 1,657 respondents, 125 (weighted estimate: 6.5%) reported requesting corrections to their medical records. In unadjusted models, greater odds of requesting corrections were observed among patients who reported their race/ethnicity as non-Hispanic black (odds ratio [OR]: 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-4.43), had frequent portal visits (OR: 3.92, 95% CI: 1.51-10.23), and had entered data into the portal (OR: 7.51, 95% CI: 4.08-13.81). In adjusted models, we found greater odds of requesting corrections among those who reported frequent portal visits (OR: 3.39, 95% CI: 1.24-9.33) and those who reported entering data into the portal (OR: 6.43, 95% CI: 3.20-12.94). No other significant differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Prior to the Information Blocking Final Rule in April 2021, approximately 6.5% of patients requested corrections of errors in their medical records at the national level. Those who reported higher engagement with their health, as proxied by portal visit frequency and entering data into the portal, were more likely to request corrections.

Health Care Providers' and Professionals' Experiences With Telehealth Oncology Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs' experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). RESULTS: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity.

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically. RESULTS: We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality. INTERPRETATION: Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.

Telehealth Interventions Designed for Women: an Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth employs technology to connect patients to the right healthcare resources at the right time. Women are high utilizers of healthcare with gender-specific health issues that may benefit from the convenience and personalization of telehealth. Thus, we produced an evidence map describing the quantity, distribution, and characteristics of evidence assessing the effectiveness of telehealth services designed for women. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE® (via PubMed®) and Embase® from inception through March 20, 2018. We screened systematic reviews (SRs), randomized trials, and quasi-experimental studies using predetermined eligibility criteria. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified for data abstraction. To assess emerging trends, we also conducted a targeted search of ClinicalTrials.gov . RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-four primary studies and three SRs were eligible for abstraction. We grouped studies into focused areas of research: maternal health (n = 96), prevention (n = 46), disease management (n = 63), family planning (n = 9), high-risk breast cancer assessment (n = 10), intimate partner violence (n = 7), and mental health (n = 3). Most interventions focused on phone as the primary telehealth modality and featured healthcare team-to-patient communication and were limited in duration (e.g., < 12 weeks). Few interventions were conducted with older women (≥ 60 years) or in racially/ethnically diverse populations. There are few SRs in this area and limited evidence regarding newer telehealth modalities such as mobile-based applications or short message service/texting. Targeted search of clinical.trials.gov yielded 73 ongoing studies that show a shift in the use of non-telephone modalities. DISCUSSION: Our systematic evidence map highlights gaps in the existing literature, such as a lack of studies in key women's health areas (intimate partner violence, mental health), and a dearth of relevant SRs. With few existing SRs in this literature, there is an opportunity for examining effects, efficiency, and acceptability across studies to inform efforts at implementing telehealth for women.