Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Telehealth outpatient palliative care in the COVID-19 pandemic: patient experience qualitative study
  1. Mirza Jacqueline Alcalde Castro1,
  2. Shenhab Zaig1,
  3. Rinat Nissim1,2,
  4. Brenda O’Connor3,
  5. Jenny Lau1,4,
  6. Ernie Mak1,4,
  7. Camilla Zimmermann1,5 and
  8. Breffni Hannon1,5
  1. 1Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Department of Palliative Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  4. 4Division of Palliative Care, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Breffni Hannon, Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada; breffni.hannon{at}uhn.ca

Abstract

Objectives Outpatient in-person early palliative care improves quality of life for patients with advanced cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic forced a rapid shift to telehealth visits; however, little is known about how telehealth in outpatient palliative care settings should be optimised beyond the pandemic. We aimed to explore, from the perspective of patients attending an outpatient palliative care clinic, the most appropriate model of care for in-person versus telehealth visits.

Methods A qualitative study using the grounded theory method. One-on-one, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 26 patients attending an outpatient palliative care clinic at a tertiary cancer centre recruited from two groups: (1) those with >1 in-person appointment prior to 1 March 2020 and >1 telehealth appointment after this date (n=17); and (2) patients who had exclusively telehealth appointments (n=9). Purposive sampling was used to incorporate diverse perspectives.

Results Overall, participants endorsed a flexible hybrid approach incorporating both in-person and telehealth visits. Specific categories were: (1) in-person outpatient palliative care supported building interpersonal connections and trust; (2) telehealth palliative care facilitated greater efficiency, comfort and independence and (3) patient-preferred circumstances for in-person visits (preferred for initial consultations, visits where a physical examination may be required and advance care planning discussions), versus telehealth visits (preferred during periods of relative heath stability).

Conclusions The elements of in-person and telehealth outpatient palliative care clinic visits described by patients as integral to their care may be used to develop models of hybrid outpatient palliative care delivery beyond the pandemic alongside reimbursement and regulatory guidelines.

  • Cancer
  • COVID-19
  • Supportive care
  • Clinical assessment
  • Quality of life

This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @N/A, @JelauPC

  • Contributors BH conceived the study and supervised the project. BH and MJAC conducted the interviews, and along with SZ, verified and coded the interviews. RN and CZ provided support around the identification and development of themes. All authors (MJAC, SZ, RN, BO’C, JL, EM, CZ and BH) were involved in study planning and design, as well as interpretation of the results and revision of the manuscript. BH is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.