Search

Background Virtual care (VC) visits (telephone or video) and email-based patient communication have been rapidly adopted to facilitate cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inequities in access and patient experience may arise as these digital health tools become prevalent. Objective We aimed to characterize inequities in access and patient-reported experience following adoption of digital health tools at a tertiary cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We designed a cross-sectional study of outpatients with visits from September to December 2020. Patient characteristics and responses to an email-based patient-experience survey were collated. Inequities in access were assessed across three pairs of comparison groups: (1) patients with VC and in-person visits, (2) patients with and without documented email addresses, and (3) responders and nonresponders to the survey. Inequities in patient-reported experience were assessed among survey responders. Demographics were mapped to area-level averages from national census data. Socioeconomic status was mapped to area-level dimensions of the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation. Covariate balance between comparison groups was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs), with SMD≥0.2 indicating differences between groups. Associations between patient experience satisfaction scores and covariates were assessed using multivariable analyses, with P Results Among the 42,194 patients who had outpatient visits, 62.65% (n=26,435) had at least one VC visit and 31.15% (n=13,144) were emailable. Access to VC and email was similar across demographic and socioeconomic indices (SMD.05). Regardless of visit type, patients had variable satisfaction with care domains across demographic and socioeconomic indices. Patients with higher ethnocultural composition scores were less satisfied with the cultural appropriateness of their care (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.86). Patients with higher situational vulnerability scores were less satisfied with discussion of physical symptoms (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93). Patients with higher residential instability scores were less satisfied with discussion of both physical (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97) and emotional (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96) symptoms, and also with the duration of their visit (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98; P=.02). Male patients were more satisfied with how their health care provider had listened to them (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.11-2.44; P=.01). Conclusions Adoption of VC and email can equitably maintain access and patient-reported experience in cancer care across demographics and socioeconomic indices. Existing health inequities among structurally marginalized patients must continue to be addressed to improve their care experience.

389 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual care (VC), resulting in new opportunities to integrate technology and a need to evaluate patient and provider experiences. To inform sustainment beyond COVID-19, we evaluated perceptions of VC at a comprehensive cancer centre in Toronto, Canada. Methods: Physicians who provided VC during the pandemic, and patients with a valid email address on file and at least one visit with centre in the preceding 12 months were eligible to participate. Survey invitations were disseminated between May and July 2021 via email using a modified Dillman approach. The survey examined the implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, and appropriateness. Unadjusted associations between patient demographic variables and preference for in-person visits were evaluated using univariate logistic regression models. Results: 41% (100/246) of physicians and 15% (2,343/15,169) of patients completed the survey. The majority of patients were Caucasian (77%), college or university educated (78%), had solid malignancies (73%), and were in the follow-up phase (47%); 50% were male. The median age was 66 (IQR: 58-74). A greater proportion of patients expressed satisfaction with VC than providers (81% and 53%). Conversely, a greater proportion of providers felt that care delivered virtually was worse than care delivered in-person (45% vs 26%). Interestingly, many patients (69%) and physicians (40%) reported feeling they could maintain a good relationship through VC while at the same time reporting concerns that VC would detract from the human interaction they value as part of care (patients: 60%; providers: 82%). Patients expressed relatively equal preference for phone vs video visits (40% vs 31%), but indicated concerns about wait times for VC visits. The majority of physicians (37%) estimated that 10-29% of their practice would remain virtual post-COVID, however physicians expressed concerns with increased workload (72%), decreased efficiency (40%), and increased worry about missing relevant clinical information (61%). The majority of patients and physicians reported that VC was not appropriate for first consultations and discussions of prognosis, and most appropriate for long-term follow-up. Being born outside of Canada, primary language other than English, lower income, lower functional health literacy, and greater physical mobility were associated with preferring in-person over VC visits. Conclusions: Patients and physicians were satisfied with VC but expressed concerns with the impacts on care quality and experience and highlighted the need for guidelines on appropriate use. Providers expressed greater concerns with VC than patients. More research is needed to formally evaluate the impact of VC on quality performance and clinical outcomes as well as investigate the patient, disease and system factors that are associated with effective virtual cancer care.

e18630 Background: The Melanoma/Skin Oncology (MSO) clinic supports > 200 patients on active treatment at any given time. In September 2018, the MSO clinic implemented a nurse-led proactive management program (IMBRASE) to support the monitoring of adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving immunotherapy (IO). Nurses conducted telephone calls at a pre-determined frequency to identify those who required immediate in-person assessment. Despite an initial 40% drop in emergency department visits in the first few months of implementation, insufficient human resources and lack of prioritization of assessments impacted the clinic’s ability to sustain this program. We sought to overcome this limitation by employing digital health technology to monitor and triage on-treatment patients for assessment (eIMBRASE program). Methods: MSO team worked alongside an internal innovation team (Cancer Digital Intelligence) to develop a remote assessment program with an algorithm able to prioritize patients by combining real-time biometrics and automatically scheduled electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) data of individuals undergoing targeted-therapy and IO. This new digital tool will be accessible via smartphone/computer. It will enable patients to send their data to the clinical team and establish priorities based on patients’ complexity of symptoms. Results: eIMBRASE algorithm requires four data points to be displayed for the clinical team: overall priority, cumulative score (CS), biometric alert, and no response alert. The first two points are based on ePROs, for which we established a set of symptoms of interest for each treatment modality. Each symptom can be categorized in 1 of the 6 priority levels. Each priority is associated with a number of complexity points on a logarithmic scale from 0 - 400. After a questionnaire is submitted, a CS is generated for clinicians to determine which patient may be the most complex and deserve priority assessment. Regarding the third data point, oxygen saturation (SpO2) and temperature (T) measures are collected throughout the day and patients are flagged according to the following predefined thresholds: T - red alert > 38.5C, orange 38.1-38.4C, yellow 37.5-38C; and SpO2 - red alert £93%. Patients under the highest risk of AEs, for instance those on anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD1, are required to complete ePROs daily during the first 12 weeks. Patients under low-risk therapies are required to complete ePROs 1x/week. The tool triggers priority-oriented timeframe for medical contact. To minimize the influence of poor electronic literacy, patients will have their apps set up at clinic before treatment initiation. Conclusions: eIMBRASE development presents an alternative way to use digital health tools to potentially improve quality of care for MSO patients. A pilot study will be conducted to assess its feasibility, the impact in patients’ outcomes and satisfaction.

Key Points Question Can virtual care (VC) be rapidly implemented across a tertiary center during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and what are service capacity and quality outcomes? Findings This cohort study of 22 085 VC visits at a single cancer center suggests feasibility of an agile service design process for implementation of VC at scale. This approach preserved outpatient caseloads and maintained care quality in all 6 care-quality domains of care quality laid out by the Institute of Medicine while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. Meaning These data support the value proposition of VC to safeguard system capacity, while minimizing the disruption to patient care during a pandemic., Importance The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective To examine the outcomes of a cancer center–wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P, This cohort study of a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center examines the outcomes of a cancer center–wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

e18768 Background: Virtual care (VC) and electronic patient-reported experience measures (ePREM) have been systemically adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate continuity of cancer care and quality improvement. Digital divides, defined as differential access and benefit from these tools, may exacerbate existing health inequities among patients. We aimed to evaluate digital divides through ePREM access, use, and responses during the pandemic. Methods: Your Voice Matters (YVM), a provincially-mandated ePREM survey, was adapted to an online platform in September 2020 and emailed to patients after outpatient VC and in-person clinic visits at a tertiary cancer centre in Ontario. Age, gender, postal codes, and completed surveys from September-December 2020 were collated. Income was estimated using area-level averages from Statistics Canada 2016 census data. Socioeconomic status was mapped to area-level dimensions of the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation: residential instability (RI), economic dependency, ethnocultural composition (EC), situational vulnerability (SV). Higher factor scores per dimension correspond to greater marginalization. Two-sided Chi-squared and t-tests were used to compare demographics between VC and in-person patients with a significance threshold of p < 0.001. Generalized estimating equations logistic regression models were used to assess associations between patient satisfaction and visit type, as well as demographics. Results: YVM was emailed to 28% (10625/37835) of patients with a response rate of 21.8% (2321/10625). Mean and minimum income (x $10,000) were highest among responders (6.6, 1.5) compared to non-responders (6.3, 1.3) and those without email (6.2, 1.1). Comparing responders with VC (n = 549) and in-person (n = 1719) visits, the former had higher mean income (6.9 vs 6.5, p < 0.001) and lower mean EC factor score (0.2 vs 0.4, p < 0.001). Satisfaction with care received was not associated with visit type and satisfaction with VC logistics was not associated with demographics. Patients with higher EC scores were more likely to rate low satisfaction in “culturally appropriate” (OR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57-0.85) and “respect” (OR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57-0.85) domains. Patients with higher SV scores were more likely to rate low satisfaction in the “physical symptoms” (OR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51-0.94) domain, while patients with higher RI scores were more likely to rate low satisfaction in the “physical” (OR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.98) and “emotional symptoms” (OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.98) domains. Conclusions: VC patients had positive experiences with visit logistics across demographics and their satisfaction with care was comparable to that of in-person patients. However, VC use and YVM access, use, and responses were associated with income and socioeconomic status. Identifying populations vulnerable to digital health inequities will guide strategies to bridge the divides.