Telehealth in outpatient delivery of palliative care: a prospective survey evaluation by patients and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: In Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic new funding models were introduced to support telehealth consultations, resulting in their widescale adoption in palliative care service delivery. Clarity around the clinical circumstances and patient populations that might be most appropriate for telehealth models was required. AIMS: To evaluate patient and physician satisfaction, acceptability and utility of outpatient palliative care provision through telehealth. METHODS: This is a multi-site prospective, cross-sectional, observational study conducted during a time of significant public health restrictions. A survey was used to collect matched patient- and physician-reported perceptions of palliative care telehealth consultations across three metropolitan hospitals in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS: There were 127 matched patient-physician data of telehealth consultations and a further 812 physician-only assessments. Telehealth was generally acceptable and satisfactory, with patients providing greater positive scores than clinicians. Telehealth incorporating both audio and video were more acceptable and satisfactory, particularly with the presence of a carer, and during routine reviews. Physicians were less satisfied using telehealth when there was increasing symptom complexity across all domains (pain, psychological, and other symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth has high utility in palliative care practice. A future hybrid model of care comprising both face-to-face and telehealth consultations seems favoured by patients and physicians but must be accompanied by targeted support for specific patient groups to ensure equitable healthcare access. Further evaluation of telehealth during a time of fewer public health emergency measures and lower community anxiety is required to fully understand its ongoing role.

The role of telehealth in oncology care: A qualitative exploration of patient and clinician perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the rapid expansion of telehealth, affording opportunities to study its impact on oncology care. Our qualitative study explored physician and patient perspectives of telehealth in cancer care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with seven physicians and eleven patients, recruited from an Australian hospital oncology department. Two authors independently coded the transcripts with emerging themes identified and refined iteratively in a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Telehealth offered broadened possibilities by allowing continuity of care in the pandemic and revealing advantages of convenience in consultations. It also highlighted core elements of in-person care that were unavailable. These included the information communicated through formal and informal physical examination, the collaboration between patient and physician in shaping outcomes and building rapport and the confidence in decisions made and physician performance. While patients and physicians envisioned the continuation of telehealth postpandemic, logistical steps are necessary to address these challenges. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the unprecedented opportunities that telehealth presents in widening access to oncology care and simultaneously reveals that it cannot always reach equivalence in quality of care. Further research is required to identify when and for whom telehealth is most acceptable as future care models are considered.

Telehealth in outpatient delivery of palliative care: A qualitative study of patient and physician views.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has widened the funded use of telehealth in Australia to support telehealth delivery to all patients in any setting. Increasing the use and experience of telehealth brings to light unique insights into the advantages and challenges of this new model of healthcare delivery This study aimed to qualitatively explore the experiences of both palliative care physicians and patients setting, including their views on its future role in healthcare. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted across three metropolitan tertiary palliative care centers in Victoria, Australia between November 2020 and March 2021. Purposive sampling identified 23 participants (12 physicians and 11 patients). Semi-structured interviews focused on the last telehealth consultation, thoughts and impressions of telehealth, and the possibility of telehealth remaining in palliative care. A thematic approach was adopted to code and analyze the data. RESULTS: Telehealth transformed the ways physicians and patients in this study perceived and engaged with outpatient palliative care across the entire continuum of care. Four key themes were identified: (1) access to care; (2) delivery of care; (3) engagement with care; and (4) the future. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study provides novel data bringing together the perspective of patients and physicians, which confirms the utility of telehealth in palliative care. Its convenience enables more frequent review, enables reviews to occur in response to lower levels of concern, and adds toward enhancing the continuity of care across and between settings. Moving forward, support seemed strongest for a hybrid model of telehealth and face-to-face consultations guided by key parameters relating to the level of anticipated complexity.

Establishing a Longitudinal Opioid Pharmacogenomic Registry for Cancer Patients: Feasibility and Acceptability.

Purpose: Individual genetic variation can affect both pain expression and opioid response. Large cohort datasets are required to validate evidence influencing genomic factors in opioid response. This study examined the feasibility of establishing an opioid pharmacogenomics registry for cancer patients containing longitudinal matched clinical, symptom, pharmacological, and genomic data, with an a priori feasibility target of 50 participants within 12 months. Methods: Consecutive patients with advanced cancer receiving opioids across five palliative care services were recruited. Clinical data (demographics, pain data, adverse effects, medications) and blood (DNA, RNA, pharmacokinetics) were collected over two time points. Patient and clinician qualitative interviews were conducted to assess acceptability. This study was approved by the SVHA Ethics Committee, Melbourne, Australia (HREC 252/18). Results: Enrollment for the registry was deemed feasible. Fifty-eight participants were recruited (median age 63.7, 45% female, 83% complete data), with the most frequent diagnosis being lung cancer (n = 18, 33%) and oxycodone the most frequently prescribed opioid (n = 30, 52%). Qualitative data indicated positive engagement from both patients and clinicians. Conclusion: Establishing a longitudinal opioid pharmacogenomic registry in patients with cancer receiving palliative care is feasible and readily acceptable.

Perceptions of telehealth in real-world oncological care: An exploration of matched patient- and clinician-reported acceptability data from an Australian cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Prior to 2020, the use of telehealth in cancer care was limited, but COVID-19 necessitated its rapid and widespread adoption into routine care delivery. This study aimed to evaluate perceptions of telehealth through a dyadic exploration of matched cancer patient- and clinician-reported acceptability data and to explore factors that may predict greater suitability for telehealth. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, exploratory survey study assessed (matched) patient- and clinician-reported perceptions of telehealth consultations occurring at a metropolitan, tertiary-based cancer centre in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty-five matched patient- and clinician-reported data were included. High rates of acceptability with telehealth were reported by patients (93%) and clinicians (91%), who mostly shared concordant views (86%). Factors significantly associated with increased acceptability for telehealth, included, for clinicians, greater familiarity with the patient (OR 8.20, 95% CI: 1.50-45.06, p = 0.02), and younger patient age (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.99-1.13, p = 0.05), and for patients was earlier stage disease (≤stage III) (OR 5.29, 95% CI: 1.08-25.82, p = 0.04). Lower acceptability for telehealth according to clinicians was associated with poorer patient performance status (OR 0.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, p = 0.04) and for patients with the need for an interpreter (0R 0.06, 95% CI: 0.008-0.51, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: While overall telehealth is acceptable in cancer care, our findings raise important implications for future service development, notably that it may be less optimal for patients with higher complexity of need-including those with more advanced disease, poorer performance status, those less well known to treating clinicians and those identified to have additional language barriers.

Palliative Care Clinical Trials: Building Capability and Capacity.

Clinical trials are a key component of expanding the evidence base in palliative care. A key strategic objective of the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre (VCCC), a multisite cancer center alliance, was to increase palliative care clinical trial expertise. The palliative care services within the VCCC alliance presented substantial trial development opportunities with large number of patients and established relationships, but few trial-active centers. Objectives: To establish a multi-site "Building Capability in Palliative Care Clinical Trials" program as a service development, and to assess the strategies, activities, and the outcomes resulting from this program. Methods: A series of strategies and activities were developed linked to the key program objectives of increasing the number of clinical sites and skilled clinicians conducting clinical trials, increasing the number of trials available and patients participating, broadening research opportunities in palliative care, and establishing the program sustainability. Results: In the two years of implementation, the program resulted in the establishment and conduct of several Phase 4 postmarketing pharmacovigilance studies, nine Phase 2 and 3 trials across five palliative care services, and a Phase 1 clinical trial. During the program, 150 patients were recruited to clinical trials, and 258 prospective pharmacovigilance monitoring cases were recorded. Five investigator-initiated trials were developed by clinical trial fellows and achieved competitive (n = 3) or commercial (n = 2) funding. Clinicians reported that undertaking clinical trials had increased attention to the evidence base of care provision, and increased service research activity more broadly. Long-term sustainability remains a challenge, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Clinical trials in palliative care services are feasible, acceptable, and result in increased attention to the evidence base of care. The strategies detailing the framework, activities, and outcomes have been collated to facilitate implementation of clinical trials in other sites and with other trial-naive disciplinary groups.