Association between telehealth use in oncology and downstream utilization at a large academic health system

J Telemed Telecare. 2024 Oct 7:1357633X241282820. doi: 10.1177/1357633X241282820. Online ahead of print.

Abstract

Background: While telemedicine has been beneficial in oncology by reducing infectious exposure and improving access for patients with poor functional status, it also has intrinsic limitations, including the inability to perform a physical exam, which could lead to increased downstream utilization in this population at high risk of medical decompensation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating the relationship between telemedicine use in oncology and subsequent outpatient oncology encounters, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations.

Methods: We included outpatient oncology encounters, including telemedicine and in-person visits, occurring between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022 at a large academic health system. Unadjusted descriptive statistics and multiple linear regressions were used to estimate subsequent outpatient oncology visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations within 30 days of an index visit based on modality (telemedicine versus in-person). The multiple regressions were adjusted for various demographic and clinical characteristics, including palliative care visits, baseline utilization, recent chemotherapy, and comorbidities.

Results: Our cohort included 63,722 patients with 689,356 outpatient encounters, of which 639,217 (92.7%) were in-person and 50,139 (7.3%) were telemedicine visits. Patients on average had 0.91 outpatient oncology visits, 0.04 ED visits, and 0.05 hospitalizations within 30 days following an index encounter. In our adjusted analyses, telemedicine was associated with 13.7 fewer downstream outpatient oncology visits (95% CI 12.5-14.9; p < 0.001) per 100 index encounters, 0.7 fewer ED visits (95% CI 0.4-1.0; p < 0.001) per 100 index encounters and 0.9 fewer hospitalizations (95% CI 0.6-1.3; p < 0.001) per 100 index encounters compared to in-person visits.

Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, oncology patients who had a telemedicine visit had fewer follow-up outpatient oncology encounters, ED visits and hospitalizations after 30 days than those with in-person visits. Future studies should further investigate the efficacy of telemedicine in oncology and outline specific scenarios for appropriate use in this and other populations.

Keywords: Telemedicine; tele-oncology.