Search

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.