PD25-11 THE IMPACT OF TELEMEDICINE ON PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Value of Care: Cost and Outcomes Measures II (PD25)1 Sep 2021PD25-11 THE IMPACT OF TELEMEDICINE ON PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY Adam Gadzinski, Isabelle Abarro, Blair Stewart, and John Gore Adam GadzinskiAdam Gadzinski More articles by this author , Isabelle AbarroIsabelle Abarro More articles by this author , Blair StewartBlair Stewart More articles by this author , and John GoreJohn Gore More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002018.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Nearly 20% of Americans live in rural communities. These individuals face barriers to accessing cancer care, including prevalent poverty and substantial travel burden to seeing cancer providers. We aimed to assess the impact of a rurally focused telemedicine program on patient outcomes in our urologic oncology outpatient clinic. METHODS: We prospectively identified patients from rural Washington State, or who lived outside Washington, with a known or suspected urological malignancy being evaluated at the University of Washington Urology Clinic via an in person clinic or a telemedicine appointment. Patients were invited to complete a post-visit survey that assessed satisfaction, travel time, costs, and work absenteeism. We compared patient-reported outcomes between those seen as in-person versus telemedicine visits. RESULTS: We invited 2641 eligible patients from August 2019–January 2021 to participate; 1114 patients (42%) completed the survey. 242 patients had in person visits and 872 had telemedicine visits. Median age was 68, 89% were male, and 75% were white. 975 patients (88%) were from Washington; the remainder resided out-of-state. Patients were being evaluated for prostate cancer (63%), kidney cancer (15%), urothelial cancer (20%), and testis cancer (2%). Patient-reported outcomes are displayed in Table 1. Twenty-three patients coming for in-person visits (10%) paid ≥$1000 in total travel costs. No differences were noted in patient satisfaction between in-person and telemedicine visit types. CONCLUSIONS: Patients traveling to our clinic from out-of-state and rural Washington incur significant travel time, costs, and time away from work to receive outpatient urologic cancer care. Telemedicine provides a medium for cancer care delivery that eliminates the significant travel burden associated with in-person clinic appointments. Source of Funding: This project is supported by a 2019 Conquer Cancer Young Investigator Award & a Swim Across America Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Young Investigator Award, both to Dr. Gadzinski © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e436-e436 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Adam Gadzinski More articles by this author Isabelle Abarro More articles by this author Blair Stewart More articles by this author John Gore More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...