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.

Background To assess the impact of COVID-19 on cancer survivors, we fielded a survey promoted via email and social media in winter 2020. Examination of the data showed suspicious patterns that warranted serious review. Objective The aim of this paper is to review the methods used to identify and prevent fraudulent survey responses. Methods As precautions, we included a Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA), a hidden question, and instructions for respondents to type a specific word. To identify likely fraudulent data, we defined a priori indicators that warranted elimination or suspicion. If a survey contained two or more suspicious indicators, the survey was eliminated. We examined differences between the retained and eliminated data sets. Results Of the total responses (N=1977), nearly three-fourths (n=1408) were dropped and one-fourth (n=569) were retained after data quality checking. Comparisons of the two data sets showed statistically significant differences across almost all demographic characteristics. Conclusions Numerous precautions beyond the inclusion of a CAPTCHA are needed when fielding web-based surveys, particularly if a financial incentive is offered.

Errors resulting in adverse events in the medical care system are ubiquitous and underreported. Critical incident techniques that have been used to reduce errors in aviation have recently been applied to evaluate adverse events in the critical care arena. We report an evaluation of interrater agreement on responses to questions concerning adverse event reporting using a computer-based medical incident reporting system (MIRS). Thirty-four intensive care unit staff volunteers reviewed five fabricated test cases containing iatrogenic factors, then completed an incident report for each case using the MIRS. Interrater agreement was significant for all five cases (p < 0.01). The time required to complete a report decreased significantly from the first case to the last (p < 0.01). Overall, the MIRS was perceived as a relatively quick (< 6 minutes) and comprehensive reporting tool. The results indicate that health care providers report adverse events similarly, suggesting that the MIRS would be a useful tool in the reduction of errors (as a process improvement program) and to facilitate the continuing process of health care improvement.