Search

PURPOSE To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards .

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Purpose: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all oncology APPs and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. Methods: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. Results: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. Conclusion: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Overview: The number of cancer survivors in the United States now approaches 12 million individuals, with an estimated 7.2% of the general population aged 18 years or older reporting a previous cancer diagnosis. These figures highlight a number of questions about the care of survivors—how patients at risk for a known set of health problems should be followed, by whom, and for how long. At the same time that oncologists are developing strategies to provide services to this growing population, there are economic and systems challenges that have relevance to the previous questions, including a predicted national shortage of physicians to provide oncology services. Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have been identified as members of the health care team who can help reduce the oncology supply and demand gap in a number of ways. The ASCO Study of Collaborative Practice Arrangements (SCPA) in 2011 concluded that oncology patients were aware and satisfied when their care was provided by NPs and PAs; there was an increase in productivity in practices that utilized NPs and PAs; utilizing the full scope of practice of NPs and PAs was financially advantageous; and, physicians, NPs, and PAs are highly satisfied with their collaborative practices. Increasingly, the oncology and health policy literature contains evidence supporting innovative provider models. There is still much work to be done to move beyond pilot data to establish the true value of these models.

In this issue of Journal of Oncology Practice, Towle et al1 present the findings of a study exploring collaborative practice models between oncologists and nonphysician practitioners (NPPs). The study design did not differentiate between physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice nurses. In this commentary, we offer a brief review of these new data in the context of what we know about NPP practice, summarize salient facts about the role of PAs, and provide recommendations for future consideration from our perspective as PAs.