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).

Patient and caregiver experience with telepharmacy in cancer care to support beginning systemic therapy: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Although the COVID-19 pandemic spurred telehealth adoption for many specialties and care team roles, the patient and caregiver experience for telepharmacy visits has been relatively understudied. To our knowledge, there is a paucity of studies that have attempted to qualitatively evaluate this. This study aimed to qualitatively assess the patient and caregiver experience of telepharmacy visits in a cancer center. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 patients with cancer and seven caregivers that had attended a telepharmacy visit between December 1, 2021, and May 24, 2022. The interviews assessed visit content, overall satisfaction, system experience, visit quality, and future preferences for pharmacy visits as telehealth versus in-person. We used both deductive and inductive coding to identify themes. RESULTS: Telepharmacy delivery was generally well-received. Reasons for having the telepharmacy visit included reviewing chemotherapy procedures, side effects to expect during treatment, providing education on recently prescribed medications, offering dietary recommendations (e.g., avoiding grapefruit juice), and performing medication reconciliation. Participants were receptive to having pharmacy visits through telehealth due to the perceived lack of a need to have a physical exam and prior relationship with the pharmacist. Participants also highlighted the main reason for the telepharmacy visits was primarily to provide patient education, which participants felt was suitable for telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: The patient and caregiver experience of telepharmacy is influenced by several factors, such as ease of connectivity, communicating effectively with the pharmacist, and timing of the telepharmacy visit (e.g., immediately after picking up medications from the pharmacy). Participants' recommendations to improve telepharmacy delivery included health systems raising awareness of telepharmacy services and providing a list of questions to patients to guide discussions.

"A great step in treating cervical cancer": Patient and provider perceptions about cervical cancer therapeutic vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored patients and providers' perspectives on therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer and assessed barriers and facilitators. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with patients who had cervical dysplasia, or a past or current cervical cancer diagnosis and providers who provided care to patients with cervical abnormalities or cervical cancer. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis in NVivo. RESULTS: A total of 28 in-depth interviews were conducted with patients (N = 15) and providers (N = 13). Participants in both groups expressed enthusiasm for the prospect of a therapeutic vaccine for cervical cancer and were encouraged by less invasive treatment opportunities. Perceived patient barriers included concerns about side effects, eligibility criteria, costs, transportation, and logistical obstacles. Providers echoed these concerns, highlighted additional structural barriers such as racism and limited availability of culturally sensitive educational aids, and underscored the need for provider training on this topic. CONCLUSION: Our results reinforce the need for future multi-level interventions discussing vaccine efficacy, durability, and safety, as well as addressing factors such as awareness, knowledge, and beliefs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings can contribute to the development of provider and patient-centered tools that promote therapeutic vaccine acceptance.

Oncology Providers' and Professionals' Experiences With Suicide Risk Screening Among Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: There has been limited study of the implementation of suicide risk screening for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) as a part of routine care. To address this gap, this study assessed oncology providers' and professionals' perspectives about barriers and facilitators of implementing a suicide risk screening among patients with HNC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with HNC with an in-person visit completed a suicide risk screening on an electronic tablet. Patients reporting passive death wish were then screened for active suicidal ideation and referred for appropriate intervention. Interviews were conducted with 25 oncology providers and professionals who played a key role in implementation including nurses, medical assistants, patient access representatives, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers, and informatics staff. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Participants identified multilevel implementation barriers, such as intervention level (eg, patient difficulty with using a tablet), process level (eg, limited nursing engagement), organizational level (eg, limited clinic Wi-Fi connectivity), and individual level (eg, low clinician self-efficacy for interpreting and acting upon patient-reported outcome scores). Participants noted facilitators, such as effective care coordination across nursing and social work staff and the opportunity for patients to be screened multiple times. Participants recommended strengthening patient and clinician education and providing patients with other modalities for data entry (eg, desktop computer in the waiting room). CONCLUSION: Participants identified important intervention modifications that may be needed to optimize suicide risk screening in cancer care settings.