Brook Anne Calton

Telemedicine has the potential to improve access to cancer care, particularly for patients with functional limitations, high symptom burdens, or financial or geographic constraints. However, there is also a risk that telemedicine can widen healthcare disparities among patients facing systemic disadvantages like those with technological barriers, poor digital literacy, older age, or non-English language preferences. To optimize telemedicine usage, we must implement practical strategies like video onboarding programs, user-friendly technology platforms, optimizing the clinician’s environment, and best practices for using interpreters. Policy changes such as state licensing requirements, controlled substance prescribing requirements, and payment parity are also crucial. This Perspective highlights these practical strategies and policy recommendations to ensure accessible and equitable cancer care augmented by telemedicine.

Though patients with Glioblastoma (GBM) and other advanced brain tumors meet nationally-defined criteria for early palliative care (PC),^1,2 PC referrals occur less frequently and later in the disease trajectory than for most other cancers.^3,4 This presents potential missed opportunities for PC clinicians to assist with symptom optimization and advance care planning conversations earlier in illness. To address this, we embedded a PC physician within the UCSF Brain Tumor Center. As there are limited published data on PC integration in NeuroOncology,^3,5 in this “Brief Communication” we describe our structure, descriptive data, and lessons learned from our 21-month pilot.

Background: Equipping all interprofessional clinicians with foundational palliative care competencies is essential to address the complex needs of the growing number of adults living with chronic, progressive, or life-threatening serious illness. There is a paucity of high-quality, open-access primary palliative care curricula and to the best of our knowledge, none designed interprofessionally. Objective: As an interprofessional team, we aimed at designing and evaluating an interactive primary palliative care education curriculum for interprofessional clinicians and trainees. Design: We developed a curriculum that includes nine 55-minute interactive modules facilitated by two interprofessional clinicians in small groups of 8–12 interprofessional learners. Setting/Subjects: Thirty-two practicing interprofessional clinicians from the San Francisco Bay Area enrolled in the pilot. Measurements: Pilot curriculum evaluation included electronic surveys pre- and post-module and at completion of the full curriculum. Results: The final evaluation response rate was 44%. Ninety-three percent of survey respondents rated the curriculum's quality as “very good” or “excellent”; 86% of respondents felt the curriculum was “extremely” or “very useful” to their clinical practice. Comparing pre- and post-module survey data, statistically significant ( p < 0.01) improvements in learner confidence were seen for each of the 25 curriculum learning objectives with an average improvement of 2.8 points. Conclusions: The curriculum was well received and was associated with an increase in learner confidence. This novel, flexible, and tuition-free curriculum fills an important educational gap and can be used to equip frontline, interprofessional clinicians with the core palliative care knowledge, skills, and attitudes to take the best possible care of seriously ill patients and families.

Journal of Palliative Medicine

Journal of Palliative Medicine

This letter to the editor proposes techniques for use in telemedicine, especially as related to delivering difficult news by video.

Background: Telemedicine visits reduce the physical and financial burdens associated with in-person appointments, especially for patients with serious illness. Little is known about patient and caregiver preferences regarding telemedicine visit timing and the discussion of sensitive topics by telemedicine. Objective: To characterize the experience of patients with serious illness and their caregivers receiving palliative care (PC) by telemedicine. Design: Mixed-methods telephone survey. Setting/Subjects: Patients and family caregivers who had at least one telemedicine visit with the outpatient PC team at our urban academic medical center. Results: A total of 35 patients and 15 caregivers were surveyed. Patient mean age was 61 years, 49% had cancer, and 86% were Caucasian. Caregiver mean age was 62 years. Mean satisfaction with PC telemedicine visits was 8.9 out of 10 for patients; 8.8 for caregivers. Patients (97%) and caregivers (100%) felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics over video. Participants felt telemedicine was an acceptable format to discuss most sensitive topics but 53% of caregivers preferred to receive bad news in person. Participants valued the convenience of telemedicine; they had concerns about rapport building and desired a more user-friendly telemedicine platform. Conclusions: Patients with serious illness and their caregivers rated telemedicine visits highly and felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics by video. Concerns included rapport building and telemedicine platform setup and quality. The rapid growth of telemedicine during coronavirus disease 2019 creates an imperative for research to understand the impact on the quality of care and mitigate any negative effects of telemedicine within a diverse population of patients.