Journal of surgical oncology · 2022
Lessons learned and keys to success: Provider experiences during the implementation of virtual oncology tumor boards in the era of COVID-19.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Perlmutter Breanna, Said Sayf Al-Deen, Hossain Mir Shanaz, Simon Robert, Joyce Daniel, Walsh R Matthew, Augustin Toms
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic required rapid adaptation of multidisciplinary tumor board conferences to a virtual setting; however, there are little data describing the benefits and challenges of using such a platform.
METHODS: An anonymous quality improvement survey was sent to participants of tumor board meetings at a large academic institution. Participants answered questions pertaining to the relative strengths and weaknesses of in-person and virtual settings.
RESULTS: A total of 335 responses (23.3% response rate) were recorded, and 253 met inclusion criteria. Respondents represented 25 different tumor board meetings, with colorectal, breast, and liver (18.6%, 17.0%, and 13.0%, respectively) being the most commonly attended. Virtual tumor boards were equivalent to in-person across 9 of 10 domains queried, while a virtual format was preferred for participation in off-site tumor boards. The lack of networking opportunities was ranked by physicians to be a significant challenge of the virtual format. Consistent leadership and organization, engaged participation of all attendees, and upgrading technology infrastructure were considered critical for success of virtual meetings.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of virtual tumor board meetings has been associated with numerous challenges. However, improving several key aspects can improve participant satisfaction and ensure excellent patient care.
METHODS: An anonymous quality improvement survey was sent to participants of tumor board meetings at a large academic institution. Participants answered questions pertaining to the relative strengths and weaknesses of in-person and virtual settings.
RESULTS: A total of 335 responses (23.3% response rate) were recorded, and 253 met inclusion criteria. Respondents represented 25 different tumor board meetings, with colorectal, breast, and liver (18.6%, 17.0%, and 13.0%, respectively) being the most commonly attended. Virtual tumor boards were equivalent to in-person across 9 of 10 domains queried, while a virtual format was preferred for participation in off-site tumor boards. The lack of networking opportunities was ranked by physicians to be a significant challenge of the virtual format. Consistent leadership and organization, engaged participation of all attendees, and upgrading technology infrastructure were considered critical for success of virtual meetings.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of virtual tumor board meetings has been associated with numerous challenges. However, improving several key aspects can improve participant satisfaction and ensure excellent patient care.