Search

PURPOSE: The use of virtual care rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and has persisted as a routine method of care delivery. Much of the literature on virtual care in oncology has focused on solid tumors, and little is known about its application in malignant hematology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with hematologic malignancies at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from October 2019 to March 2021 to determine the use of virtual care during this period, cost-savings associated with virtual visits, and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Your Voice Matters survey, a provincially administered survey to evaluate patient experience. RESULTS: Overall, 12.1% (1,122/9,295) of patients had a virtual visit during the study period (0% from October 2019 to February 2020, 36% from March to August 2020, and 30% from September 2020 to March 2021), of which 36% were in the lymphoma clinic and 46% were in the myeloma clinic. The mean two-way opportunity cost for an in-person visit was $168.00 CAD per person with public transit, and $120.40 CAD per person driving. Responses to the Your Voice Matters survey indicated that patients with a virtual visit reported that physical symptoms were discussed appropriately (mean 4.73/5), and were more likely to ask for a follow-up virtual visit compared with patients with in-person visits (mean 4.50/5 v 3.02/5, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that virtual care may be a feasible and well-received tool for delivering care to a substantial proportion of patients with hematologic malignancies, while enabling substantial cost-savings to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Lymphomas often present a diagnostic challenge, and for some a delay in diagnosis can negatively influence outcomes of therapy. We established a nurse practitioner–led lymphoma rapid diagnosis clinic (LRDC) with the goal of reducing wait times to definitive diagnosis. We examined the initial 30-month experience of the LRDC, and results were compared with time periods before implementation of the clinic to determine program impact. METHODS: All patients referred to LRDC with suspicion of lymphoma from June 1, 2015 to Nov 30, 2017 were evaluated. Time from initial consultation to diagnosis was compared with patients diagnosed at our center with lymphoma in 2008 and 2012. Patient symptoms and relevant laboratory/imaging findings were collected to identify patterns of presentation and predictive factors for benign diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 126 patients evaluated, 66 (52%) had confirmation of lymphoma diagnosis. Median time to lymphoma diagnosis was 16 days for patients assessed in LRDC and 28 days for historical controls (P <.001). By univariable analysis, lymph node size greater than 3.4 cm and presence of mediastinal or abdominal adenopathy increased the likelihood of a diagnosis of malignancy, whereas younger age, being a nonsmoker, and prior rheumatologic condition were associated with a nonmalignant diagnosis. In multivariable analysis, lymph node size, age, and prior rheumatologic diagnosis remained significant. CONCLUSION: Establishing a nurse practitioner–led LRDC was effective in shortening time to diagnosis of lymphoma. Younger age, smaller lymph node size, and prior rheumatologic disorder reduced the likelihood of a cancer diagnosis in our patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Cancer drug wastage occurs when a parenteral drug within a fixed vial is not administered fully to a patient. This study investigated the extent of drug wastage, the financial impact on the hospital budget, and the cost savings associated with current mitigation strategies. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in three University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals of various sizes. We recorded the actual amount of drug wasted over a 2-week period while using current mitigation strategies. Single-dose vial cancer drugs with the highest wastage potentials were identified (14 drugs). To calculate the hypothetical drug wastage with no mitigation strategies, we determined how many vials of drugs would be needed to fill a single prescription. Results The total drug costs over the 2weeks ranged from$50,257 to $716,983 in the three institutions. With existing mitigation strategies, the actual drug wastage over the 2 weeks ranged from $928 to $5,472, which was approximately 1% to 2% of the total drug costs. In the hypothetical model with no mitigation strategies implemented, the projected drug cost wastage would have been $11,232 to $149,131, which accounted for 16% to 18% of the total drug costs. As a result, the potential annual savings while using current mitigation strategies range from 15% to 17%. Conclusion The financial impact of drug wastage is substantial. Mitigation strategies lead to substantial cost savings, with the opportunity to reinvest those savings. More research is needed to determine the appropriate methods to minimize risk to patients while using the cost-saving mitigation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]