Provider Perceptions of Telemedicine Video Visits to Home in a Veteran Population.

Background: Clinical Video Telemedicine to Home (CVTH) allows primary care clinicians to conduct clinical encounters with patients in remote locations through a secure synchronous video connection, offering improved access to care and increased patient satisfaction. Introduction: Although implementation of CVTH continues to grow, little is known about clinician perceptions of clinical applicability or utilization barriers. We assessed provider attitudes and perceived barriers toward implementation of CVTH visits at the Seattle Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinic. Materials and Methods: Data are presented from a cross-sectional survey. A total of 49 clinicians, including faculty, MD residents, nurse practitioner residents, and pharmacists, were surveyed with 13 questions gauging opinions of CVTH and prior experience with video telemedicine. Results: Forty-seven providers (96%) were interested in incorporating CVTH into their practice. Forty-one clinicians (83.7%) were concerned about patient technological competency, and 39 (79.6%) were worried about insufficient internet connectivity. A large majority of providers saw opportunities to provide medication reconciliation and improve access to care for geographically distant or homebound patients. Discussion: Although limited by its descriptive data and analysis, this study provides evidence that primary care providers are most likely to offer CVTH visits to patients who find it physically challenging to attend a clinic appointment or have chief complaints perceived as not requiring a physical examination. Conclusions: Although most providers are interested in using video visits to care for patients who live remotely, they are concerned about using CVTH visits for patients who might require a physical examination or technological assistance.

Clinical research in older adults with hematologic malignancies: Opportunities for alignment in the Veterans Affairs.

Management of hematologic malignancies in older patients is complex and, with recent and anticipated trends in demographics, increasingly common. As a large, nationally integrated medical system the Veterans Affairs has the potential to lead in research to benefit these patients. In this review we describe the evolving treatment paradigms of hematologic malignancies and how they are best fit with older patients through comprehensive evaluation of key vulnerabilities. We also discuss optimization of supportive care and navigation services to target identified risks and challenges aimed at ameliorating the patient's burden of cancer and treatment. Lastly, we discuss opportunities in design of prospective clinical trials to better align with real-world cases, thereby expanding enrollment of and applicability to older patients with hematologic malignancies.

Clinical research in older adults with hematologic malignancies: Opportunities for alignment in the Veterans Affairs.

Management of hematologic malignancies in older patients is complex and, with recent and anticipated trends in demographics, increasingly common. As a large, nationally integrated medical system the Veterans Affairs has the potential to lead in research to benefit these patients. In this review we describe the evolving treatment paradigms of hematologic malignancies and how they are best fit with older patients through comprehensive evaluation of key vulnerabilities. We also discuss optimization of supportive care and navigation services to target identified risks and challenges aimed at ameliorating the patient's burden of cancer and treatment. Lastly, we discuss opportunities in design of prospective clinical trials to better align with real-world cases, thereby expanding enrollment of and applicability to older patients with hematologic malignancies.

On the front line: first choice pharmacotherapeutics for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a common hematologic malignancy with a highly variable clinical course. Frontline treatments include cytotoxic chemotherapies, immunotherapies, and small molecule inhibitors. Clinical and molecular factors guide treatment initiation and selection. Over the last decade, refinement of CLL risk stratification tools and growth of the arsenal of effective therapeutics have profoundly improved outcomes. These advances have concurrently increased the complexity of managing the early phases of treatment. AREAS COVERED: This review describes the factors considered in the determination of first-line treatment of CLL. Areas of emphasis include assessment of patient fitness, disease classification and risk stratification, and the mechanisms, efficacy, and toxicities associated with available pharmacotherapeutics. EXPERT OPINION: Multiple different treatments may be appropriate for a specific clinical scenario, and selection among them requires discussion of relative risks and benefits. Advances in frontline CLL treatment will continue to shift the treatment paradigm toward prioritizing quality of life alongside survival, limiting treatment and toxicity, and the development of biologically rational synergistic drug combinations and sequences.

Surgical implications and variability in the use of the flat epithelial atypia diagnosis on breast biopsy specimens.

OBJECTIVES: Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is a relatively new diagnostic term with uncertain clinical significance for surgical management. Any implied risk of invasive breast cancer associated with FEA is contingent upon diagnostic reproducibility, yet little is known regarding its use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study interpreted one of four 60-case test sets, one slide per case, constructed from 240 breast biopsy specimens. An electronic data form with standardized diagnostic categories was used; participants were instructed to indicate all diagnoses present. We assessed participants' use of FEA as a diagnostic term within: 1) each test set; 2) 72 cases classified by reference as benign without FEA; and 3) six cases classified by reference as FEA. 115 pathologists participated, providing 6900 total independent assessments. RESULTS: Notation of FEA ranged from 0% to 35% of the cases interpreted, with most pathologists noting FEA on 4 or more test cases. At least one participant noted FEA in 34 of the 72 benign non-FEA cases. For the 6 reference FEA cases, participant agreement with the case reference FEA diagnosis ranged from 17% to 52%; diagnoses noted by participating pathologists for these FEA cases included columnar cell hyperplasia, usual ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, and atypical ductal hyperplasia. CONCLUSIONS: We observed wide variation in the diagnosis of FEA among U.S. pathologists. This suggests that perceptions of diagnostic criteria and any implied risk associated with FEA may also vary. Surgical excision following a core biopsy diagnosis of FEA should be reconsidered and studied further.