Are cancer patients and health professionals satisfied with teleoncology compared with standard oncology care?

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Introduction

Telehealth is being incorporated into many aspects of health care to bridge the gap in access for rural people. Its potential use in cancer care is gaining traction, but are patients and health professionals happy with this contemporary practice? The evidence indicates teleoncology is the way forward for rural oncology patients.

Back to top

Patient satisfaction

While there is a paucity of quality evidence investigating patient satisfaction with teleoncology, there are many small studies on this topic with all of them coming to similar conclusions. A systematic review by Kitamura et al found patient satisfaction to be high for use of videoconferencing technology in regional, rural and remote areas.[1] People in these isolated areas have embraced this technology as it saves them time, money and the inconvenience of travelling to attend face to face appointments in large often unfamiliar towns or cities.

There are several novel forms of teleoncology used in different health services involving videoconferencing either with fixed computer equipment or a mobile tablet computer along with videophone and mobile phone sms services. The videoconferencing is used for clinical assessments, multidisciplinary team meetings, counselling sessions and support groups.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][3] Patient satisfaction has been high and acceptable clinical outcomes in all these studies. Additionally, research has shown there is no difference in acceptance of this technology and type of service by the indigenous people of Australia.[12]

Provision of teleoncology is highly satisfactory to rural and remote patients due to the ability to have treatment delivered close to home without the need for travel. Research has covered six domains that impact on patient satisfaction. These are communication, costs, convenience, access to care, waiting times for care and quality and ease of use of the technology.[13]

Patients report little difference in the effectiveness of communication between face-to-face visits and teleoncology. While health professionals feel it is important to have another health professional accompany the patient, the patient did not always believe this was necessary,[14] presumably because they do not have a health professional supporting them when in tertiary clinics.One systematic review found that patients had a greater preference for videoconference than face-to-face consultations.[13] Additionally Watanabe et al found wait times to patient review was decreased with the use of telehealth, further adding to patient satisfaction.[15]

Costs are a big factor in determining satisfaction for patients. This not only includes the cost of travel and accommodation, but also income lost due to time away from work for both the patient and their carers who travel to support them. Other benefits of teleoncology include being able to remain in their own community and environment with their support networks around them. This is especially important for indigenous people.[12]

No studies reported low patient satisfaction with teleoncology. Patients are overwhelmingly satisfied and embraced the opportunity to have care delivery closer to home. The ability to stay close to home and have family, social networks and community present at teleoncology consultations is expected to increase compliance with treatment; however this is an area needing further research.

Back to top

Health professional satisfaction

Qualitative studies reveal high acceptance rates of teleoncology by health professionals. The literature identifies a myriad of uses for telehealth within the oncology field including multidisciplinary team meetings, medical oncology consultations, radiotherapy planning, colposcopic examinations, speech pathologist examination and therapy, pain management, cancer support groups and clinical psychology counselling.[9][16][8][17][6][13] This highlights the acceptance by medical nursing and allied health professionals in all areas of patient care. Health professionals welcomed these new models of care for reasons including networking, support, professional up-skilling opportunities and shared care.

Two Canadian studies indicated physicians were less satisfied with the overall experience of telehealth consultations than were the patients.[17][16] A study by Larcher et al states the introduction of videoconferencing technology into daily use was the greatest difficulty for physicians when first using it, however these physicians appreciated the opportunities this technology provides for rural and remote patients.[17] This is supported by Fielding et al who reported that medical staff with little or no previous experience with telehealth are less receptive to this form of care delivery.[16] This stresses the importance of appropriate education and service planning for teleoncology prior to the implementation of this form of care. Acceptance and uptake of teleoncology models by health professionals can be enhanced through training and education in telehealth models of care. One example of a web based training tool is Three steps to telehealth by the University of New South Wales, Australia.

Studies by Wilbur et al and Burns et al found the use of speciality equipment enabled them to provide complex physical examination that was equal to that of face-to-face meetings.[9] These needed to be easy to use, with an adequate quality of visual and auditory systems.A study by Weinerman et al found no difference in satisfaction for face-to-face versus teleoncology with the exception of one oncologist who felt teleoncology was not as successful as face-to-face due to frustration with the technology.[18]

A study be Sezeur et al found that satisfaction with teleoncology was high. There was no difference in the clinical relationship between the specialist and the patient, or the quality of the message delivered and received using teleoncology compared to face-to-face consultation. Additionally, a huge saving in cost was gained from patients or specialists not needing to travel to consultations.[19] In Hazin & Qaddoumi’s 2010 review of teleoncology initiatives they found that while it is not the remedy for all things cancer related, it is an effective tool to bridge the gaps in access to services for rural and remote people.

The greatest concern for health professionals appears to be the ability to examine patients. In some areas this has been overcome through the presence of the local general practitioner, medical officer, nurse practitioner or senior registered nurse to support the specialist with this aspect of care.[20]

The benefits of teleoncology involving a health professional at the primary sites includes increased knowledge of cancer, its treatments and side-effect management; improved networking and comfort with liaising with the tertiary team and upskilling for those who see few cases in the rural and remote sites.[12][20][21][15] Haozous et al found perceived competence in pain management for patients increased significantly for those health professionals who attended case conferences by telehealth compared to those who did not. This supports the educational benefits of participation in teleoncology.[6]

The greatest benefit of teleoncology is the improved two-way communication between the tertiary and primary health care providers and increased patient trust of communication within their healthcare team.[12][20][21][15][6]

Data from Weinnerman et al’s trial showed a tenfold increase in the use of teleoncology for rural patients over five or more years, indicating the growing acceptance of this form of patient management among both patients and specialists.[22]

Back to top

Recommendation

Evidence summary Level References
Many small studies report high levels of patient satisfaction by both Indigenous and non Indigenous patients and families with teleoncology models, in relation to benefits including reduction in travel to larger centres, ability to establish rapport and relationship with specialists, ability to receive medication safely and overall quality of the services they receive closer to home. IV [14], [12], [18]
Evidence-based recommendationQuestion mark transparent.png Grade
Teleoncology models of care are acceptable to patients from rural and remote areas including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
C


Back to top

Practice Point

Practice pointQuestion mark transparent.png

In line with contemporary research teleoncology and telehealth must be considered as an important adjunct when developing new oncology models of care to deliver care closer to home in rural and remote Australia.


Appropriate resources, both human and material should be allocated for the implementation of this form of care provision. Additionally, adequate training and support on the use of this technology must be provided prior to commencement of a teleoncology service.

Back to top

References

  1. Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RK. How effective is video consultation in clinical oncology? A systematic review. Curr Oncol 2010 Jun;17(3):17-27 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20567623.
  2. Laila M, Rialle V, Nicolas L, Duguay C, Franco A. Videophones for the delivery of home healthcare in oncology. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008;136:39-44 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18487705.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Cluver JS, Schuyler D, Frueh BC, Brescia F, Arana GW. Remote psychotherapy for terminally ill cancer patients. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11(3):157-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15901444.
  4. Coelho JJ, Arnold A, Nayler J, Tischkowitz M, MacKay J. An assessment of the efficacy of cancer genetic counselling using real-time videoconferencing technology (telemedicine) compared to face-to-face consultations. Eur J Cancer 2005 Oct;41(15):2257-61 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16176873.
  5. Meropol NJ, Daly MB, Vig HS, Manion FJ, Manne SL, Mazar C, et al. Delivery of Internet-based cancer genetic counselling services to patients' homes: a feasibility study. J Telemed Telecare 2011;17(1):36-40 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097566.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Haozous E, Doorenbos AZ, Demiris G, Eaton LH, Towle C, Kundu A, et al. Role of telehealth/videoconferencing in managing cancer pain in rural American Indian communities. Psychooncology 2012 Feb;21(2):219-23 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22271543.
  7. Yap KY, Low HX, Koh KS, Un M, Shih V, Chan A. Feasibility and acceptance of a pharmacist-run tele-oncology service for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in ambulatory cancer patients. Telemed J E Health 2013 May;19(5):387-95 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23531095.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Bohnenkamp SK, McDonald P, Lopez AM, Krupinski E, Blackett A. Traditional versus telenursing outpatient management of patients with cancer with new ostomies. Oncol Nurs Forum 2004 Sep;31(5):1005-10 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15378102.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Burns CL, Ward EC, Hill AJ, Malcolm K, Bassett L, Kenny LM, et al. A pilot trial of a speech pathology telehealth service for head and neck cancer patients. J Telemed Telecare 2012 Dec;18(8):443-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23209274.
  10. Sibson L, Dunn R, Evans J, Jones R, Hayward M, Wallace S. The virtual mole clinic: preliminary results from the Plymouth skin cancer screening study using telemedicine. Med Inform Internet Med 1999 Jul;24(3):189-99 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10654813.
  11. Hitt WC, Low G, Bird TM, Ott R. Telemedical cervical cancer screening to bridge medicaid service care gap for rural women. Telemed J E Health 2013 May;19(5):403-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23600410.
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Mooi JK, Whop LJ, Valery PC, Sabesan SS. Teleoncology for indigenous patients: the responses of patients and health workers. Aust J Rural Health 2012 Oct;20(5):265-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998201.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 Buchanan AH, Datta SK, Skinner CS, Hollowell GP, Beresford HF, Freeland T, et al. Randomized Trial of Telegenetics vs. In-Person Cancer Genetic Counseling: Cost, Patient Satisfaction and Attendance. J Genet Couns 2015 Apr 3 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25833335.
  14. 14.0 14.1 Sabesan S, Simcox K, Marr I. Medical oncology clinics through videoconferencing: an acceptable telehealth model for rural patients and health workers. Intern Med J 2012 Jul;42(7):780-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21627743.
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 Watanabe SM, Fairchild A, Pituskin E, Borgersen P, Hanson J, Fassbender K. Improving access to specialist multidisciplinary palliative care consultation for rural cancer patients by videoconferencing: report of a pilot project. Support Care Cancer 2013 Apr;21(4):1201-7 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23161339.
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 Fielding RG, Macnab M, Swann S, Kunkler IH, Brebner J, Prescott RJ, et al. Attitudes of breast cancer professionals to conventional and telemedicine-delivered multidisciplinary breast meetings. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11 Suppl 2:S29-34 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16447355.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Larcher B, Arisi E, Berloffa F, Demichelis F, Eccher C, Galligioni E, et al. Analysis of user-satisfaction with the use of a teleconsultation system in oncology. Med Inform Internet Med 2003 Jun;28(2):73-84 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692585.
  18. 18.0 18.1 Weinerman B, den Duyf J, Hughes A, Robertson S. Can subspecialty cancer consultations be delivered to communities using modern technology?--A pilot study. Telemed J E Health 2005 Oct;11(5):608-15 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250826.
  19. Sezeur A, Degramont A, Touboul E, Mosnier H. Teleconsultation before chemotherapy for recently operated on patients. Am J Surg 2001 Jul;182(1):49-51 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11532415.
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 Sabesan S, Larkins S, Evans R, Varma S, Andrews A, Beuttner P, et al. Telemedicine for rural cancer care in North Queensland: bringing cancer care home. Aust J Rural Health 2012 Oct;20(5):259-64 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998200.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Sabesan S, Roberts LJ, Aiken P, Joshi A, Larkins S. Timely access to specialist medical oncology services closer to home for rural patients: experience from the Townsville Teleoncology Model. Aust J Rural Health 2014 Aug;22(4):156-9 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25123618.
  22. Weinerman BH, Barnett J, Loyola M, den Duyf J, Robertson S, Ashworth V, et al. Telehealth--a change in a practice model in oncology. Telemed J E Health 2012 Jun;18(5):391-3 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489930.

Back to top

Appendices