Original Article The state of telehealth: 2 years into the COVID-19 pandemic-back to business as usual?

Introduction: Telemedicine (TM) was underutilized prior to the COVID-19 pandemic presumably due to nonstandardized reimbursement routes and a perceived lack of need. Early experience with the pandemic necessitated this form of medical care, although durability of consistent delivery remains in question. We quantify the utilization patterns of TM over the past 2 years over multiple waves of the pandemic across various service lines in a large rural health system. Materials: Data of TM utilization were prospectively collected between March 2020-January 2022. Rates of adoption among the various surgical and non-surgical services disciplines were compared. Subgroup analyses between different surgical subspecialties and within the urologic subspecialties was performed. Results: 3.5 million visits were recorded;3.14 million (90%) on-site and 349,989 (10%) TM;254,919 (73%) video-assisted and 95,070 (27%) were telephonic. Throughout the pandemic, non-surgical services utilized TM to a greater extent than surgical services (mean% 12 vs 6). Significant variation in the utilization among surgical services was reported, with Urology representing a high utilizer (15%);Among Urologic subspecialties utilization, Endourology (28%) was highest and Pediatric Urology (5%) was lowest. Following an initial spike in TM utilization during the pandemic, rates have declined and plateaued at 5-7% of all visits over the past 6-months. Conclusion: TM utilization in this large health system has remained under 10% following the initial surge in 2020. Non-surgical services preferentially use TM more than surgical domains. Certain subspecialties utilize TM more than others, possible due to patient population, practice patterns and medical conditions. Barriers to adoption are essential to determine the relatively low volume of use across this health system.

The state of telehealth: 2 years into the COVID-19 pandemic - back to business as usual?

Introduction: Telemedicine (TM) was underutilized prior to the COVID-19 pandemic presumably due to non-standardized reimbursement routes and a perceived lack of need. Early experience with the pandemic necessitated this form of medical care, although durability of consistent delivery remains in question. We quantify the utilization patterns of TM over the past 2 years over multiple waves of the pandemic across various service lines in a large rural health system. Materials: Data of TM utilization were prospectively collected between March 2020-January 2022. Rates of adoption among the various surgical and non-surgical services disciplines were compared. Subgroup analyses between different surgical subspecialties and within the urologic subspecialties was performed. Results: 3.5 million visits were recorded;3.14 million (90%) on-site and 349,989 (10%) TM;254,919 (73%) video-assisted and 95,070 (27%) were telephonic. Throughout the pandemic, non-surgical services utilized TM to a greater extent than surgical services (mean% 12 vs 6). Significant variation in the utilization among surgical services was reported, with Urology representing a high utilizer (15%);Among Urologic subspecialties utilization, Endourology (28%) was highest and Pediatric Urology (5%) was lowest. Following an initial spike in TM utilization during the pandemic, rates have declined and plateaued at 5-7% of all visits over the past 6-months. Conclusion: TM utilization in this large health system has remained under 10% following the initial surge in 2020. Non-surgical services preferentially use TM more than surgical domains. Certain subspecialties utilize TM more than others, possible due to patient population, practice patterns and medical conditions. Barriers to adoption are essential to determine the relatively low volume of use across this health system.

Prostate cancer treatment disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons from a multi-institutional collaborative

Background: Minority communities have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, however the impact of the pandemic on prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is unknown. To that end, we sought to determine the racial impact on PCa surgery during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: After receiving institutional review board approval, the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) database was queried to evaluate practice patterns for Black and White patients with untreated non-metastatic PCa during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-May 2020) compared to prior (March-May 2019). PURC is a prospective collaborative, which includes private practice and academic institutions within both urban and rural settings including regional safety-net hospitals. As data entry was likely impacted by the pandemic, we limited our search to only practices that had data entered through June 1, 2020 (5 practice sites). We compared patient and disease characteristics by race using Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-square to compare categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum to evaluate continuous covariates. Patients were stratified by risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection as described by the CDC. We determined the covariate-adjusted impact of year and race on surgery, using logistic regression models with a race∗year interaction term. Results: 647 men with untreated nonmetastatic PCa were identified, 269 during the pandemic and 378 from the year prior. During the pandemic, Black men were significantly less likely to undergo prostatectomy compared to White patients (1.3% v 25.9%;p < 0.001), despite similar COVID-19 risk-factors, biopsy Gleason grade group, and comparable surgery rates prior (17.7% vs. 19.1%;p = 0.75). White men had lower pre-biopsy PSA (7.2 vs. 8.8 vs. p = 0.04) and were older (24.4% vs. 38.2% < 60yr;p = 0.09). The regression model demonstrated an 94% decline in odds of surgery(OR = 0.06 95%CI 0.007-0.43;p = 0.006) for Black patients and increase odds of surgery for White patients (OR = 1.41 95%CI 0.89-2.21;p = 0.142), after adjusting for covariates. Changes in surgical volume varied by site (33% increase to complete shutdown), with sites that experienced the largest reduction in cancer surgery, caring for a greater proportion of Black patients. Conclusions: In a large multi-institutional regional collaborative, odds of PCa surgery declined only among Black patients during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. While localized prostate cancer does not require immediate treatment, the lessons from this study illuminate systemic inequities within healthcare, likely applicable across oncology. Public health efforts are needed to fully recognize the unintended consequence of diversion of cancer resources to the pandemic in order to develop balanced mitigation strategies as viral rates continue to fluctuate.