Cancer Australia consensus statement on COVID-19 and cancer care: embedding high value changes in practice.

INTRODUCTION: Driven by the need to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and optimise use of health system resources, while maximising patient outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented changes in cancer care. Some new or modified health care practices adopted during the pandemic will be of long term value in improving the quality and resilience of cancer care in Australia and internationally. The Cancer Australia consensus statement is intended to guide and enhance the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic and in a post-pandemic environment. This article summarises the full statement, which is available at https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/covid-19/covid-19-recovery-implications-cancer-care. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The statement is informed by a desktop literature review and input from cancer experts and consumers at a virtual roundtable, held in July 2020, on key elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. It describes targeted strategies (at system, service, practitioner and patient levels) to retain, enhance and embed high value changes in practice. Principal strategies include: implementing innovative models of care that are digitally enabled and underpinned by clear governance, policies and procedures to guide best practice cancer care; enabling health professionals to deliver evidence-based best practice and coordinated, person-centred cancer care; and empowering patients to improve health literacy and enhancing their ability to engage in informed, shared decision making. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Widespread adoption of high value health care practices across all levels of the cancer control sector will be of considerable benefit to the delivery of optimal cancer care into the future.

Understanding women's perspectives and information needs about shared follow-up care for early breast cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Shared breast cancer follow-up care involving a breast cancer specialist and a general practitioner (GP) has been demonstrated to be effective, yet barriers to participation in this model by women remain. This study explores the responses of women who recently finished active treatment for early breast cancer (EBC) to a proposed model of shared follow-up care to understand the type of information needed to support participation. METHODS: Qualitative study based on focus groups with women with EBC in the early stage of follow-up care from across metropolitan, regional and rural settings in Australia. Discussions were transcribed and thematic analysis is undertaken. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted, involving 31 women aged between 32 and 78 years. The discussion focused on two topics. In the first topic 'Current experiences of follow-up care', two themes emerged: (i) follow-up as a continuation of active treatment; (ii) GPs involvement in care during active treatment influence attitudes to shared follow-up care. In the second topic area 'Perceptions of shared follow-up care' four themes emerged: (i) a need for evidence regarding model effectiveness; (ii) choice; (iii) concerns regarding capacity and capability of GPs to deliver care and (iv) the need for clear communication between GPs, specialists and women. CONCLUSIONS: Women need information regarding the evidence for the effectiveness of shared follow-up care to assure them it does not pose a risk to their health outcomes. Clear descriptions of GP and specialist roles and the opportunity to jointly decide participation is essential for the model to be adopted.

Consumers' experiences, preferences, and perceptions of effectiveness in using telehealth for cancer care in Australia.

AIM: COVID-19 accelerated telehealth (video and telephone) use for cancer care to reduce disease exposure and transmission. Understanding consumers' health service delivery needs is required to sustain telehealth activity and develop new models of care. We explored consumers' experiences of telehealth in cancer care and their perspectives on improving and sustaining telehealth uptake in the future. METHODS: Exploratory design mixed-methods study using the Model for Assessment of Telemedicine (MAST) framework. Consumers affected by cancer completed an online survey and semistructured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square. Qualitative data from the MAST consumer domain were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1162 survey respondents and 18 interview participants. Video and telephone were used in cancer care with various providers. Telephone was used more frequently. Most respondents (85%) had reliable internet connections for video, however, 36% were not offered a video consultation. Video compared with telephone users were statistically significantly more likely to be satisfied with the quality of their treatment and perceived their consultation achieved as much as an in-person consultation. Telephone users (51%) compared with video users (31%) were more likely to perceive their concerns would have been better understood by their care provider if they were seen in person. Five themes emerged from the qualitative data. Consumers want modality choice, video provides superior experiences versus telephone, consultation mode preference is fluid, and consultation scheduling and administration need further consideration. CONCLUSION: Consumers support telehealth in cancer care. Consumers want consultation mode choices based on their needs and purpose of consultation.

Telehealth adoption in cancer clinical trials: An Australian perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer clinical trials have traditionally occurred in-person. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced adaptions of all aspects of cancer care (including clinical trials) so they can be delivered remotely. We aimed to quantify and qualify current use of telehealth and how it can be further improved and routinely integrated into cancer clinical trials in Australia. METHODS: We used a mixed-method study design, involving surveys of 14 multi-site Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trial Groups members across Australia (n = 98) and qualitative interviews with trial administrators and clinicians (n = 21). RESULTS: The results of our study indicated a strong willingness to use telehealth for certain transactions of clinical trials because it was perceived as a way of increasing efficiency and reach of services. Hybrid models (including telehealth and in-person methods), which considered transaction, cancer type, and patient preferences were most favorable. Additionally, telehealth allowed for greater equity to access and reduced trial burden but interestingly had little effect on increased diversity and recruitment. Factors influencing telehealth service implementation and uptake included communication among trial stakeholders, training, and learning from the experience of others in the clinical trials community. CONCLUSION: Many but not all aspects of clinical trial care are appropriate to be delivered via telehealth. A hybrid approach provides flexibility to trial delivery and may support greater equity of access to trials in the future. Our findings and actionable recommendations support the need for greater planning, training, and guidelines to enable telehealth to be better integrated into clinical trials. Opportunities exist to expand the use of remote patient monitoring to enable more objective data collection from trial participants in the future.

Conceptual Framework for Cancer Care During a Pandemic Incorporating Evidence From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: With successive infection waves and the spread of more infectious variants, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have major impacts on health care. To achieve best outcomes for patients with cancer during a pandemic, efforts to minimize the increased risk of severe pandemic infection must be carefully balanced against unintended adverse impacts of the pandemic on cancer care, with consideration to available health system capacity. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework for cancer care during a pandemic provides a planning resource for health services and policy-makers that can be broadly applied globally and to similar pandemics. METHODS: Evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care and health system capacity to June 2021 was reviewed, and the conceptual framework was developed and updated. RESULTS: Components of health system capacity vary during a pandemic, and capacity relative to pandemic numbers and severity affects resources available for cancer care delivery. The challenges of successive pandemic waves and high numbers of pandemic cases necessitate consideration of changing health system capacity in decision making about cancer care. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework provides guidance on continuation of care across the cancer pathway, in the face of challenges to health systems, while minimizing infection risk for patients with cancer and unintended consequences of delays in screening, diagnosis, and cancer treatment and backlogs because of service interruption. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic supports continuation of cancer care wherever possible during similar pandemics. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework, underpinned by principles for optimal cancer care, informs decision making across the cancer care continuum. It incorporates consideration of changes in health system capacity and capacity for cancer care, in relation to pandemic progression, enabling broad applicability to different global settings.

Cancer care and management during COVID-19: A comparison of in-person, video and telephone consultations.

In Australia, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the exponential growth in the delivery of telehealth services. Medicare data indicates that the majority of telehealth consultations have used the telephone, despite the known benefits of using video. The aim of this study was to understand the perceived quality and effectiveness of in-person, telephone and videoconsultations for cancer care. Data was collected via online surveys with consumers (n = 1162) and health professionals (n = 59), followed by semi-structured interviews with telehealth experienced health professionals (n = 22) and consumers (n = 18). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and significance was tested using the chi-square test. A framework analysis and thematic analysis were used for qualitative data. Results indicate telehealth is suitable for use across the cancer care pathway. However, consumers and health professionals perceived videoconsultations facilitated visual communication and improved patients' quality of care. The telephone was appropriate for short transactional consultations such as repeat prescriptions. Consumers were rarely given the choice of consultation modality. The choice of modality depended on a range of factors such as the type of consultation and stage of cancer care. Hybrid models of care utilising in-person, video and telephone should be developed and requires further guidance to promote the adoption of telehealth in cancer care.