Show simple item record

Patient and Provider‐Reported Satisfaction of Cancer Rehabilitation Telemedicine Visits During the COVID‐19 Pandemic

dc.contributor.authorChang, Philip J
dc.contributor.authorJay, Gina M.
dc.contributor.authorKalpakjian, Claire
dc.contributor.authorAndrews, Cody
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Sean
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-06T15:51:14Z
dc.date.available2023-01-06 10:51:13en
dc.date.available2022-01-06T15:51:14Z
dc.date.issued2021-12
dc.identifier.citationChang, Philip J; Jay, Gina M.; Kalpakjian, Claire; Andrews, Cody; Smith, Sean (2021). "Patient and Provider‐Reported Satisfaction of Cancer Rehabilitation Telemedicine Visits During the COVID‐19 Pandemic." PM&R 13(12): 1362-1368.
dc.identifier.issn1934-1482
dc.identifier.issn1934-1563
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/171222
dc.description.abstractIntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has accelerated the growth of telemedicine services across the United States. In this study, we examined cancer rehabilitation patient and physician satisfaction with telemedicine visits. We also sought to evaluate the types of provider services that are given during telemedicine visits.ObjectiveTo assess overall patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine visits and explore whether satisfaction varied by contact method (phone or video) and encounter type (new problem, worsening problem, stable/improving problem).DesignProspective survey study.SettingCancer rehabilitation program at an academic medical center.ParticipantsThree cancer rehabilitation providers and 155 unique patients participated in the study.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresProvider and patient satisfaction measured by customized surveys.ResultsOne hundred eighty‐four encounters with 169 unique patients were scheduled. Of these, 14 were new visits and 170 were follow‐up visits. Eighteen encounters (9.8%) were either no shows or rescheduled, making for 166 encounters with 155 unique patients. Patient and provider responses comprised the following: 94.8% of patient responses reported “quite a bit” or “very much” for the telemedicine visit being a good experience; 63.1% of patient responses reported “quite a bit” or “very much” for interest in using telemedicine visits in the future; and 83.9% of provider responses reported “quite a bit” or “very much” for the patient’s main problem being addressed by the visit. Providers were more likely to prefer an in‐person visit for a new or worsening problem versus a stable/improving problem. The most common services provided were medication prescription/titration and education/counseling. The least common services provided were making of new diagnoses, ordering interventional procedures, and making referrals.ConclusionTelemedicine visits were well received by both patients and providers in a cancer rehabilitation medicine clinic setting. However, in the case of a new or worsening problem, satisfaction declined. These data support that telemedicine visits should be considered essential as part of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation care, especially during a public health crisis.
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.titlePatient and Provider‐Reported Satisfaction of Cancer Rehabilitation Telemedicine Visits During the COVID‐19 Pandemic
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelKinesiology and Sports
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171222/1/pmrj12552_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171222/2/pmrj12552.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pmrj.12552
dc.identifier.sourcePM&R
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGordon HS, Solanki P, Bokhour BG, Gopal RK. "Iʼm not feeling like Iʼm part of the conversation" patientsʼ perspectives on communicating in clinical video telehealth visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2020; 35 ( 6 ): 1751 ‐ 1758.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHong YR, Lawrence J, Williams D Jr, Mainous A III. Population‐level interest and telehealth capacity of US hospitals in response to COVID‐19: cross‐sectional analysis of Google search and national hospital survey data. 2020; 6 ( 2 ): e18961.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMustafa SS, Yang L, Mortezavi M, Vadamalai K, Ramsey A. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine encounters in an allergy and immunology practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020; 125 ( 4 ): 478 ‐ 479.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLayfield E, Triantafillou V, Prasad A, et al. Telemedicine for head and neck ambulatory visits during COVID‐19: evaluating usability and patient satisfaction. Head Neck. 2020; 42 ( 7 ): 1681 ‐ 1689.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVerduzco‐Gutierrez M, Bean AC, Tenforde AS, Tapia RN, Silver JK. How to conduct an outpatient telemedicine rehabilitation or prehabilitation visit. PM R. 2020; 12 ( 7 ): 714 ‐ 720.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTenforde AS, Iaccarino MA, Borgstrom H, et al. Telemedicine during COVID‐19 for outpatient sports and musculoskeletal medicine physicians. PM R. 2020; 12 ( 9 ): 926 ‐ 932.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCheville AL, Moynihan T, Herrin J, Loprinzi C, Kroenke K. Effect of collaborative telerehabilitation on functional impairment and pain among patients with advanced‐stage cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019; 5 ( 5 ): 644 ‐ 652.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOnder G, Rezza G, Brusaferro S. Case‐fatality rate and characteristics of patients dying in relation to COVID‐19 in Italy [published correction appears in JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1619]. JAMA. 2020; 323 ( 18 ): 1775 ‐ 1776.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKuderer NM, Choueiri TK, Shah DP, et al. Clinical impact of COVID‐19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study [published correction appears in Lancet. 2020 Sep 12;396(10253):758]. Lancet. 2020; 395 ( 10241 ): 1907 ‐ 1918.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Cancer Society. Cancer Treatment: Survivor Facts & Figures. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/survivor-facts-figures.html. Accessed August 11, 2020.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCheville AL, Mustian K, Winters‐Stone K, Zucker DS, Gamble GL, Alfano CM. Cancer rehabilitation: an overview of current need, delivery models, and levels of care. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2017; 28 ( 1 ): 1 ‐ 17.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStubblefield MD, Schmitz KH, Ness KK. Physical functioning and rehabilitation for the cancer survivor. Semin Oncol. 2013; 40 ( 6 ): 784 ‐ 795.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSinha N, Cornell M, Wheatley B, Munley N, Seeley M. Looking through a different lens: patient satisfaction with telemedicine in delivering pediatric fracture care. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2019; 3 ( 9 ): e100.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTasneem S, Kim A, Bagheri A, Lebret J. Telemedicine video visits for patients receiving palliative care: a qualitative study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2019; 36 ( 9 ): 789 ‐ 794.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata‐driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42 ( 2 ): 377 ‐ 381.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019; 95: 103208.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTenforde AS, Hefner JE, Kodish‐Wachs JE, Iaccarino MA, Paganoni S. Telehealth in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a narrative review. PM R. 2017; 9 ( 5S ): S51 ‐ S58.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHandschu R, Scibor M, Willaczek B, et al. Telemedicine in acute stroke: remote video‐examination compared to simple telephone consultation. J Neurol. 2008; 255 ( 11 ): 1792 ‐ 1797.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRocque GB, Williams CP, Miller HD, et al. Impact of travel time on health care costs and resource use by phase of care for older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37 ( 22 ): 1935 ‐ 1945.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScott Kruse C, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2018; 24 ( 1 ): 4 ‐ 12.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWosik J, Fudim M, Cameron B, et al. Telehealth transformation: COVID‐19 and the rise of virtual care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020; 27 ( 6 ): 957 ‐ 962.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.