Differences in perception and use of remote patient monitoring among community and academic/NCI designated cancer programs.

Abstract

563 Background: The benefits of remote patient monitoring (RPM) in oncology for reporting of adverse effects to improve patient outcomes are well-documented. To assess real-world use and perceptions of RPM, including its role with patient reported outcomes (PROs), the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) surveyed U.S. cancer program staff. Methods: Developed by expert advisors and patient advocacy partners, a survey of cancer program staff was distributed between December 2022 and January 2023. The survey included 25 closed and open-ended questions. Analysis was performed and responses compared using two-tailed Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of 128 staff respondents (52% MDs, 23% admin/managers, 22% other clinicians, 3% other cancer program staff), 40% worked in community, 38% academic/NCI-designated, and 20% private/physician practice settings. 34 U.S. states were represented. There was a high level of endorsement of RPM in the entire cohort; 86% of community and academic program staff agreed that RPM supplemented provider visits and informed clinical decision-making and patient/caregiver conversations. Among respondents using RPM (45%), 68% of community programs reported incorporating patient input into RPM program planning (vs 100% academic). (p=0.02). Compared to community programs, more academic programs reported planning/implementing RPM (57% vs 32%; p=0.02) and trended to have greater familiarity with RPM (80% vs 94%, p=0.07 NS). More community respondents (vs. academic) indicated concerns regarding patient comfort with RPM (80% vs 59%, p=0.05), access to a smartphone/computer (69% vs 45%, p=0.03), as well as barriers to RPM including securing funding (82% vs 57%, p=0.01) and EHR integration (61% vs 37%, p=0.02). In qualitative responses, 18% of community and 4% of academic staff described needs for provider education. Conclusions: Oncology staff across community and academic settings endorse the value of RPM to improve patient communication and clinical decision-making. There were more concerns and barriers to RPM planning and implementation reported by community programs. Nearly a third of community program staff indicated no incorporation of patient input to inform RPM planning. Further research into implementation barriers is needed, including funding/reimbursement strategies and tailoring patient/provider education to more equitably incorporate RPM across diverse cancer program settings.