PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid shifts in cancer survivorship care, including the widespread use of telehealth. Given the swift transition and limited data on preferences and experiences around telehealth, we surveyed oncology providers and post-treatment survivors to better understand experiences with the transition to telehealth. METHODS We distributed provider (MD, PA or NP, nurse, navigator, and social worker) and survivor surveys through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer in mid-October 2020. Survivor surveys were also disseminated through patient advocacy organizations. We included questions on demographics, experiences with telehealth, and preferences for future telehealth utilization. RESULTS Among N = 607 providers and N = 539 cancer survivors, there was overwhelmingly more support from providers than from survivors for delivery of various types of survivorship care via telehealth and greater comfort with telehealth technologies. The only types of appointments deemed appropriate for survivorship care by both > 50% of providers and survivors were discussion of laboratory results or imaging, assessment and/or management of cancer treatment symptoms, nutrition counseling, and patient navigation support. Only a quarter of survivors reported increased access to health care services (25.5%), and 32.0% reported that they would use telehealth again. CONCLUSION Although there have been drastic changes in technological capabilities and billing reimbursement structures for telehealth, there are still concerns around delivery of a broad range of survivorship care services via telehealth, particularly from the patient perspective. Still, offering telehealth services, where endorsed by providers and if available and acceptable to cancer survivors, may provide more efficient and accessible care following the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundMortality from hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures remains high. Guidelines offer varying care approaches including the use of pelvic packing (PP), which was recently adopted for potential control of bleeding for this condition. However, the implementation of PP is uncertain as the debate on the optimal resuscitation strategy, angioembolization or PP continues. The study was designed to assess current practices among level 1 trauma centers in the US in regard to PP treatment for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was created to assess when to apply PP, application approach, and the respondent’s anecdotal perception on safety and effectiveness. Trauma Medical Directors at 158 US level 1 trauma centers were sent biweekly email invitations for 3 months. Participants were allowed to skip questions for any reason. The study hypothesis was that PP practices vary by US census bureau region, annual trauma admissions, and length of time in years since each trauma center received their respective level 1 trauma center designation.ResultsTwenty-five percent (40/158) of trauma medical directors participated and 75% (118/158) of the trauma medical directors did not participate. Of those who took the survey, 36/40 (90%) completed the survey and 4/40 (10%) partially completed the survey. Only 36 trauma medical directors responded on their perception of safety and effectiveness; 72% (26/36) of participants perceived PP as safe, whereas only a third (12/36) of participants perceived PP as effective. There were 25 trauma medical directors who provided the sequence of treatment modalities utilized at their level 1 trauma center, 76% (19/25) of participants reported that PP is utilized as the third or fourth priority. None of the participating level 1 trauma centers reported a preference towards utilization of PP as the first priority treatment. Half of the participants reported a preference towards applying PP only as a last resort to control hemorrhage. Northeastern and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely than Midwestern and Southern level 1 trauma centers to have reported application of PP to all hemodynamically unstable patients (p = 0.05). Midwestern, Southern, and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely to have perceived PP as safe than Northeastern level 1 trauma centers (p = 0.04). All low-volume and 38% high-volume level 1 trauma centers perceived PP to increase infection risks, (p = 0.03). We observed no association between the length of time each trauma center was designated a level 1 trauma center, and all participant responses.ConclusionControversy and varying anecdotal perception regarding safety and effectiveness of PP prevails among trauma medical directors at level 1 trauma centers in the US.