The COVID‐19 pandemic has precipitated the rapid uptake of telehealth in cancer care and in other fields. Many of the changes made in routine clinical practice could be embedded beyond the duration of the pandemic. This is intended as a practical guide to cancer clinicians and others in establishing and improving the quality of consultations performed by telehealth.

Introduction The Victorian COVID-19 Cancer Network (VCCN) Telehealth Expert Working Group aimed to evaluate the telehealth (TH) experience for cancer patients, carers and clinicians with the rapid uptake of TH in early 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a prospective multi-centre cross-sectional survey involving eight Victorian regional and metropolitan cancer services and three consumer advocacy groups. Patients or their carers and clinicians who had TH consultations between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020 were invited to participate in patient and clinician surveys, respectively. These surveys were opened from September to December 2020. Results The acceptability of TH via both video (82.9%) and phone (70.4%) were high though acceptability appeared to decrease in older phone TH users. Video was associated with higher satisfaction compared to phone (87.1% vs 79.7%) even though phone was more commonly used. Various themes from the qualitative surveys highlighted barriers and enablers to rapid TH implementation. Discussion The high TH acceptability supports this as a safe and effective strategy for continued care and should persist beyond the pandemic environment, where patient preferences are considered and clinically appropriate. Ongoing support to health services for infrastructure and resources, as well as expansion of reimbursement eligibility criteria for patients and health professionals, including allied health and nursing, are crucial for sustainability.

PURPOSE: Rural outreach is a common method for delivering oncology services closer to rural residents; however, there is no clear service framework for supporting its quality and governance. This work aimed to develop an agreed framework for improving the governance and quality of a rural oncology outreach service. METHODS: A Six Sigma and participatory action approach was used. Key clinicians and managers identified project goals and scope, participated in several rounds of interviews and medical record audits, and discussed findings to reach consensus about a framework for quality outreach service delivery from one regional cancer center supporting two rural hospital sites (5-chair nurse-led oncology units). RESULTS: Themes included strong investment by stakeholders in maintaining the outreach service for its importance for rural populations. The referral, treatment, and clinical governance processes were implicitly understood between stakeholders but not well documented. Medical record audits of treated patients identified important gaps in clinical information at rural sites. Through reflection and discussion, consensus was reached about a framework for quality service delivery. The participatory action planning cycle involving sites in regular discussions fostered information sharing, strong engagement, and uptake of the final framework. CONCLUSION: The framework was applied to a memorandum of understanding for planning, governance, and outcomes monitoring and provides a basis for developing new and benchmarking existing oncology outreach services.

Background In response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was rapidly rolled out in health services across Australia including those delivering cancer care. This study aimed to understand people with cancer and carers’ experiences with telehealth for cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions. Method Semi-structured interviews conducted with people with cancer and carers via telephone or online video link between December 2020 and May 2021. Participants were recruited through cancer networks and social media. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis undertaken. Results Twenty-three patients and 5 carers were interviewed. Telephone-based appointments were most common. Responses to telehealth were influenced by existing relationships with doctors, treatment/cancer stage and type of appointment. Four themes were derived: (i) benefits, (ii) quality of care concerns, (iii) involving carers, and (iv) optimising use of telehealth. Benefits included efficiency and reduced travel. Quality of care concerns identified subthemes: transactional feel to appointments; difficulties for rapport; suitability for appointment type and adequacy for monitoring. Both patients and carers noted a lack of opportunity for carers to participate in telephone-based appointments. Aligning appointment mode (i.e. telehealth or in person) with appointment purpose and ensuring telehealth was the patient’s choice were seen as essential for its ongoing use. Discussion and conclusions While telehealth has benefits, its potential to reduce the quality of interactions with clinicians made it less attractive for cancer patients. Patient-centred guidelines that ensure patient choice, quality communication, and alignment with appointment purpose may help to increase telehealth’s utility for people affected by cancer.