Introduction The COVID‐19 pandemic led to telemedicine adoption for many medical specialties, including surgical cancer care. To date, the evidence for patient experience of telemedicine among patients with cancer undergoing surgery is limited to quantitative surveys. Thus, this study qualitatively assessed the patient and caregiver experience of telehealth visits for surgical cancer care. Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 patients with cancer and three caregivers who had completed a telehealth visit for preanesthesia or postoperative visits. Interviews covered visit descriptions, overall satisfaction, system experience, visit quality, what roles caregivers had, and thoughts on what types of surgery‐related visits would be appropriate through telehealth versus in‐person. Results Telehealth delivery for surgical cancer care was generally viewed positively. Multiple factors influenced the patient experience, including prior experience with telemedicine, ease of scheduling visits, smooth connection experiences, having access to technical support, high communication quality, and visit thoroughness. Participants identified use cases on telehealth for surgical cancer care, including postoperative visits for uncomplicated surgical procedures and educational visits. Conclusions Patient experiences with telehealth for surgical care are influenced by smooth system experiences, high‐quality patient‐clinician communications, and a patient‐centered focus. Interventions are needed to optimize telehealth delivery (e.g., improve telemedicine platform usability).

PURPOSE: There has been limited study of the implementation of suicide risk screening for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) as a part of routine care. To address this gap, this study assessed oncology providers' and professionals' perspectives about barriers and facilitators of implementing a suicide risk screening among patients with HNC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with HNC with an in-person visit completed a suicide risk screening on an electronic tablet. Patients reporting passive death wish were then screened for active suicidal ideation and referred for appropriate intervention. Interviews were conducted with 25 oncology providers and professionals who played a key role in implementation including nurses, medical assistants, patient access representatives, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers, and informatics staff. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Participants identified multilevel implementation barriers, such as intervention level (eg, patient difficulty with using a tablet), process level (eg, limited nursing engagement), organizational level (eg, limited clinic Wi-Fi connectivity), and individual level (eg, low clinician self-efficacy for interpreting and acting upon patient-reported outcome scores). Participants noted facilitators, such as effective care coordination across nursing and social work staff and the opportunity for patients to be screened multiple times. Participants recommended strengthening patient and clinician education and providing patients with other modalities for data entry (eg, desktop computer in the waiting room). CONCLUSION: Participants identified important intervention modifications that may be needed to optimize suicide risk screening in cancer care settings.