Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

ePoster Display

1846P - A permanent legacy of the pandemic? Patient and staff views of the introduction of virtual clinics to the Irish oncology service

Date

16 Sep 2021

Session

ePoster Display

Topics

COVID-19 and Cancer;  Survivorship;  Supportive and Palliative Care

Tumour Site

Presenters

Ruth Kieran

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2021) 32 (suppl_5): S1237-S1256. 10.1016/annonc/annonc701

Authors

R. Kieran1, C. Murphy2, E. Maher1, J. Buchalter3, S. Sukor1, S.P. Alken4

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, St James's Hospital, . - Dublin/IE
  • 2 Medical Oncology, Beaumont Hospital, D09 FT51 - Dublin/IE
  • 3 Medical Oncology Dept., St James's Hospital, D08 NHY1 - Dublin/IE
  • 4 Medical Oncology, St James's Hospital, Dublin/IE

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1846P

Background

Virtual clinics were introduced to our practice in March 2020. Many viewed this as a favourable change, but some staff and patients were dissatisfied. We aimed to assess outcomes from virtual clinics, and to assess patient and staff views on them and on their barriers to implementation.

Methods

We prospectively assessed outcomes from the virtual consultations of 53 patients scheduled to attend an oncology outpatient appointment in a cancer centre (April-July 2020). 6 months later, 15 of these took part in a telephone survey. 32 oncologists completed an online survey.

Results

Median time to review patients was 18 mins. (range 4 – 141), time spent on non-contactable patients (n=6) was 15 mins/patient. In 14 cases, visits took under 10 mins. (33%). 9 took 30+ mins. (20%). Median age was 61 (range 22-84). Patients had been attending the service for a median of 26.5 months (range 2-170), and were on surveillance following systemic anti-cancer therapy (n=36, 68%), or were receiving hormonal therapy (n=16, 30%). For 36%, a clinical exam was an essential part of surveillance. Necessary bloods were not done in 80% (n=20). Different plans may have been agreed with 2 patients (4%) had they attended in-person. In patients surveyed, mean Short Assessment of Patient Satisfaction score was 27.8. 69% preferred the virtual clinic. All want more virtual followups, but 73% would not want ‘bad news’ this way. 67% (n=10) and 47% (n=7) had time or financial savings. 87% of surveyed doctors felt virtual clinics were faster than in-person equivalents, in 16% by 10+ mins/patient. 42% (n=13) arranged earlier followup. 8 (25%) felt patients often had not expected a call. Low satisfaction was associated with difficulty with patient assessment (81%, X 2 (1, N=31)=15.7, p<0.001) or communication (63%, X 2 (1, N=31)=4.1, p=0.04), resource limitation (48%, X 2 (1, N=31)=8.5, p=0.004), or poor access to results of investigations (40%, X 2 (1, N=23)=5.3, p=0.02). 33% feel their virtual clinic quality is as good as in-person, 68% that they communicate well. 71% felt patients should have no more than 2 consecutive virtual visits.

Conclusions

While patient satisfaction was high, barriers exist, and must be addressed if virtual clinics are to play a long-term role in oncology.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.