Patient experience of telehealth appointments in head and neck cancer services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid changes to head and neck cancer (HNC) services. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) face-to-face appointments were converted to telehealth appointments (telephone and video-call) to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. The literature exploring HNC patient experience of these appointment types is limited. AIMS: To explore patient experience of telehealth appointments at one UK centre during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the variables that may influence patient preference for virtual or face-to-face appointments. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A survey-based study design was used, with closed questions and open text options to capture the views of the participants. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Open text data was used to add depth to the findings. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A total of 23 participant surveys were returned. Six categories were identified: Usability; Information receiving & giving; Satisfaction; Emotions and comfort; Rapport; and Travel time and cost. Overall, participants gave positive responses to each category and indicated that telehealth appointments met their needs. Areas for clinical consideration are highlighted. Variables such as age, travel distance from hospital site, fear of COVID-19 and information technology (IT) access did not appear to influence patient preference for appointment type. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Going forward, telehealth may be considered for use in combination with face-to-face appointments in the HNC pathway. Areas for further development include a 'telehealth screening tool' that may help to identify those patients most appropriate for these appointment types, or who require support to access them. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to HNC centres across the world. Services adapted to meet the needs of patients with many implementing telehealth into pathways. Studies exploring telehealth in speech and language therapy (SLT) services with the HNC population indicate positive results. It is clear telehealth has a role in modern healthcare and should not be viewed as a temporary solution to the pandemic. It is, however, recognized that embedding telehealth into pathways is not straightforward and requires ongoing review and evaluation, which includes patient and clinician perceptions. What this study adds to the existing knowledge The service evaluation gives insight into HNC patient experience of telehealth appointments for MDT clinics (led by SLT, dietician and clinical nurse specialist) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, patients report a positive experience of telehealth in the HNC pathway and are willing to accept this platform into their healthcare. Areas for clinical consideration are highlighted. What are the actual and clinical implications of this work? This findings of this service evaluation can be used to support the co-design of HNC pathways which embed telehealth as an option for patients. Areas that were important to the participants are highlighted; this includes the timing of telehealth appointments in the pathway, the need to meet the MDT face to face and the positive benefit of cost savings. The authors suggest a telehealth appointment screening tool as an area for future development.

Evaluation of Spontaneous Swallow Frequency in Healthy People and Those With, or at Risk of Developing, Dysphagia: A Review.

Dysphagia is a common and frequently undetected complication of many neurological disorders and of sarcopoenia in ageing persons. Spontaneous swallowing frequency (SSF) has been mooted as a possible tool to classify dysphagia risk. We conducted a review of the literature to describe SSF in both the healthy population and in disease-specific populations, in order to consider its utility as a screening tool to identify dysphagia. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Metadata were extracted, collated and analysed to give quantitative insight. Three hundred and twelve articles were retrieved, with 19 meeting inclusion and quality criteria. Heterogeneity between studies was high (I2 = 99%). Mean SSF in healthy younger sub-groups was 0.98/min [CI: 0.67; 1.42]. In the Parkinson's sub-group, mean SSF was 0.59/min [0.40; 0.87]. Mean SSF in healthy older, higher risk and dysphagic populations were similar (0.21/min [0.09; 0.52], 0.26/min [0.10; 0.72] and 0.30/min [0.16; 0.54], respectively). SSF is a novel, non-invasive clinical variable which warrants further exploration as to its potential to identify persons at risk of dysphagia. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to develop objective, standardised methods for detecting SSF, and develop normative values in healthy populations.

Enhanced recovery after head and neck cancer surgery: a review of current literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is well documented in a number of surgical specialities. However, it remains an emerging concept in surgical head and neck cancer care. The purpose of this review is to appraise the current evidence investigating enhanced recovery in head and neck cancer, and explore areas for future clinical research. RECENT FINDINGS: There were three key themes in enhanced recovery from the current head and neck cancer literature: early oral feeding, fistula closure and service delivery. This evidence is emerging and the quality of papers remains variable which makes it difficult to draw robust clinical recommendations. However, there are some encouraging clinical findings with regards to early oral feeding protocols and suturing of the trachea-stoma. SUMMARY: There is limited literature in enhanced recovery in head and neck cancer, with questionable quality of the papers reviewed. As such, there is no consensus for a standardized enhanced recovery pathway which demonstrates effective service delivery and positive patient outcomes. It is clear that implementation of enhanced recovery pathways is complex and requires patient and clinician buy in. Future research should focus on co-design of a methodologically sound enhanced recovery pathway with evaluation of its implementation.