No abstract

No abstract

Background. We conducted a re-audit of the surgical practice of UK dermatologists for the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer and examined changes with reference to our previous audit in 2014. The audit was supplemented by a detailed assessment of completeness of the histopathology reports for each tumour. Methods. UK dermatologists collected data on 10 consecutive nonmicrographic excisions for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and 5 for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Data were collected on site, preoperative diagnosis, histological diagnosis, proximity to previous scars, and histological deep and peripheral margins. Results. In total, 222 responses were received from 135 centres, reporting on 3290 excisions. Excisions from the head and neck accounted for 56.7% of cases. Tumour diameter (mean AE SD) was 11.4 AE SD 7.1 mm (maximum size 100 mm) and 97% of cases were primary excisions. BCCs and SCCs respectively accounted for 65.7% and 26.8% of total cases. Of the suspected BCCs and SCCs, 95.8% and 80.4%, respectively, were confirmed histologically. All margins for any tumour were clear in 97.0% of cases, and complication rate in the audit was < 1%. Of the 2864 histology reports evaluated, only 706 (24.6%) contained all core data items; 95% of these were structure (synoptic) reports. Commonly omitted items were level of invasion, risk and T stage, which were absent from 35.7%, 64.2% and 44.1% of reports, respectively. Conclusions. Diagnostic accuracy and complete excision rates remain high. Complication rates may be under-reported owing to lack of follow-up. Histopathology reporting has a greater chance of being complete if reports are generated on a fieldbased platform (synoptic reporting).

The majority of excisions for NMSC are for BCC and SCC. Our figures for diagnostic accuracy are at the upper range of previously published figures. Most patients were not followed up in secondary care, hence complication rates may be under-reported.

e13618 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has compelled an increased use of virtual care delivery models in oncology. This study sought to examine the views of oncology health care providers (HCP) in British Columbia on the value and impact of virtual care models in clinical practice. Methods: A semi-structured interview-survey was developed to compare provider practice patterns between May 2019 and May 2020. Questions were designed to determine provider-perceived value and impact of virtual visits on clinical interactions with patients. HCP (including physicians, dentists, and nurse practitioners) at BC Cancer were invited to participate. Responses to the interview questions were de-identified and HCP names were replaced with a study code. Quantitative questions were interpreted with descriptive statistics. Qualitative results were analyzed and iteratively coded by multiple reviewers for emerging themes. Results: Among 531 invited participants, 61 completed the interview-survey and 60 were included in the final analysis. Of those interviewed, 47% were radiation oncologists and 33% were medical oncologists. The remainder of HCP interviewed (n = 12) included functional imaging physicians, general practitioners in oncology, hereditary cancer physicians, nurse practitioners, palliative care physicians, psychiatrists, and surgical oncologists. Most oncology providers (87%) desired the continuation of virtual visits as part of their clinical practice so long as barriers to integration were addressed. Barriers identified included limited access to physical resources, such as hardware (70% responses) and quiet spaces (54% responses), insufficient logistic support such as information technology services (84% responses) and operational workflows (46% responses), the absence of guidelines to select patients for this delivery model (38% responses), and concerns regarding HCP liability, security and privacy (30% responses). Conclusions: Oncology HCP value delivering patient care through virtual means, however, barriers to implementation must be better understood. These data may inform continued use and implementation of virtual care at other oncology centers.