Search

Abstract Background The COVID‐19 pandemic prompted a surge in telehealth utilization. However, language barriers have emerged as a potential obstacle to effective telemedicine engagement, impacting millions of limited English proficient (LEP) individuals. Understanding the role of language spoken in telehealth outcomes is critical, particularly in cancer care, in which consistent follow‐up and communication are vital. The primary objective was to assess the impact of telehealth utilization and primary language spoken on clinical outcomes in cancer patients. Methods This study utilized a retrospective cohort design, encompassing cancer patients seen at the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022. The study incorporated both in‐person and telehealth visits, examining the association between encounter type and clinical outcomes. Results The study included 7890 patients with more than one outpatient visit during the study period. There was decreased telehealth utilization in non‐English speaking cancer patients throughout the pandemic. Increased telehealth utilization was associated with higher rates of admission, irrespective of cancer type. Additionally, telehealth visits were associated with longer duration of subsequent admissions compared to in‐person visits. Spanish‐speaking patients utilizing telehealth had higher rates of re‐admission compared to English speakers utilizing telehealth. Patients who died had higher rates of telehealth utilization compared to patients who survived. Conclusions and Relevance This study demonstrates that primary language spoken is associated with differences in telehealth utilization and associated outcomes in cancer patients. These differences suggest that the interplay of telehealth and language could contribute to widening of disparities in clinical outcomes in these populations. The study underscores the need to optimize telehealth usage and minimize its limitations to enhance the quality of cancer care in a telehealth‐driven era.

Objective: To decrease interruptions in handoff, increase compliance with a structured verbal handoff format, and increase compliance with handoff template completion in electronic medical records without increasing the length of handoff time. Patients and Methods: The project timeline was from April 1, 2019, to February 1, 2020. Define phase data were obtained through a survey of stakeholders to identify the gap in needs. The baseline data included components from the illness severity, patient summary, action list, situational awareness and contingency plans, and synthesis by receiver (IPASS) handoff tool because this tool best aligned with information identified in the define phase. Observational data were collected in person and reviewed via audio recording for accuracy. Results were analyzed to determine adherence to the chosen intervention, the IPASS handoff tool, on which the stakeholders were educated and assessed prior to implementation. Five plan-do-study-act cycles were completed over 3 months to optimize the intervention. Final data were collected and analyzed using the same method as baseline data. Results: After implementation of the IPASS handoff tool, there were more care plan components mentioned in the provider handoffs across all unique IPASS components, there were fewer observed distracting events, and there was increased compliance with electronic medical record handoff completion. The time of handover increased by 3 minutes. Conclusion: A standardized handoff tool improved communication during provider handoffs by increasing the mention of pertinent details and reducing distracting events during handoff.