Introduction Telepharmacy has the potential to enhance pharmacy services in oncology care, especially in remote areas. This scoping review explored the range, critical benefits and barriers of using telepharmacy services in oncology care. Methods The scoping review followed the Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework to identify available evidence. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for original research published between 2010 and 2020. The five dimensions of the Alberta Quality Matrix for Health were used to analyse reported outcomes. Results Eligible articles ( n = 21) were analysed. Telepharmacy in oncology care was used for follow-up, monitoring and counselling, intravenous chemotherapy and sterile compounding, expanding availability of pharmacy services, and remote education. Telepharmacy obtained high acceptability among cancer patients ( n = 5) and healthcare professionals ( n = 5), and increased accessibility of pharmaceutical services to underserved cancer populations ( n = 2). Commonly cited effectiveness and safety outcomes were improved patient adherence ( n = 5), increased pharmacy services ( n = 3) and early identification of medication-related problems ( n = 5). Telepharmacy improved efficiency in staffing and workload ( n = 3), and increased cost savings ( n = 3). A shortage of resources ( n = 5), technical problems ( n = 4) and prolonged turnaround time ( n = 4), safety concerns ( n = 2) and patient willingness to pay ( n = 1) were identified barriers to implementing telepharmacy in oncology care. Discussion Despite evidence pointing to the advantages and opportunities for expanding oncology pharmacy services through telepharmacy, certain challenges remain. Further research is needed to investigate safety concerns and patient willingness to pay for telepharmacy services.

Background A single-entry model in healthcare consolidates waiting lists through a central intake and allows patients to see the next available health care provider based on the prioritization. This study aimed to examine whether and to what extent the prioritization reduced wait times for hip and knee replacement surgeries. Method The survival regression method was used to estimate the effects of priority levels on wait times for consultation and surgery for hip and knee replacements. The sample data included patients who were referred to the Orthopedic Central Intake clinic at the Eastern Health region of Newfoundland and Labrador and had surgery of hip and knee replacements between 2011 and 2019. Result After adjusting for covariates, the hazard of having consultation booked was greater in patients with priority 1 and 2 than those in priority 3 when and at 90 days after the referral was made for both hip and knee replacements. Regarding wait time for surgery after the decision for surgery was made, while the hazard of having surgery was lower in priority 2 than in priority 3 when and indifferent at 182 days after the decision was made, it was not significantly different between priority 1 and priority 3 among hip replacement patients. Priority levels were not significantly related to the hazard of having surgery for a knee replacement after the decision for surgery was made. Overall, the hazard of having surgery after the referral was made by a primary care physician was greater for patients in high priority than those in low priority. Preferring a specific surgeon indicated at referral was found to delay consultation and it was not significantly related to the total wait time for surgery. Incomplete referral forms prolonged wait time for consultation and patients under age 65 had a longer total wait time than those aged 65 or above. Conclusion Patients with high priority could have a consultation booked earlier than those with low priority and prioritization in a single entrance model shortens the total wait time for surgery. However, the association between priority levels and wait for surgery after the decision for surgery was made has not well-established.

BackgroundSingle‐entry models (SEM) improve wait times for hip and knee replacement, but little is known whether prioritization implemented in SEM can help meet the benchmarks for consolation/surgery. This study aimed to determine the impact of prioritization on receiving consultation and surgery within the benchmarks.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study for which two administration databases were linked. Logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of prioritization on receiving consultations and surgery within the benchmarks of 90 and 182 days, respectively, adjusting for patients’ characteristics and preference for surgeon.Results1,967 patients were included in this study. The odds ratios of having consultation within 90 days for hip replacement patients in priorities 1 and 2 (high priority) were 57.24 (CI: 23.16–141.47) and 14.63 (CI: 6.44–33.25), respectively, compared with those in priority 3. For knee replacement, patients with higher priority were more likely to have consultation within 90 days. Although priority levels were not related to having surgery within 182 days for knee replacement, hip replacement patients with priority 1 (CI: 0.2–0.75) and 2 (CI: 0.16–0.54) were less likely to have surgery within 182 days, compared with those with priority 3.ConclusionPatients with high priority levels were more likely to have consultation within 90 days for hip and knee replacements. SEM may not help have surgery within 182 days. Prioritization has no impact on receiving surgery within 182 days for knee replacement, but hip replacement patients with high priority were less likely to have surgery within 182 days.