The field of telehealth is rapidly growing and evolving across medical specialties and health care settings. While additional data are needed, telepalliative care (the application of telehealth technologies to palliative care) may help address important challenges inherent to our specialty, such as geography and clinician staffing; the burden of traveling to brick-and-mortar clinics for patients who are symptomatic and/or functionally limited; and the timely assessment and management of symptoms. Telepalliative care can take many forms, including, but not limited to, video visits between clinicians and patients, smartphone applications to promote caregiver well-being, and remote patient symptom-monitoring programs. This article, created by experts in telehealth and palliative care, provides a review of the current evidence for telepalliative care and potential applications and practical tips for using the technology.

Background: ASCO and IOM recommend palliative care (PC) across health care settings for patients with serious illnesses, including cancer. This study provides an overview of the current availability, structure, and basic quality of PC services within NCCN Member Institutions. Methods: A PC survey was developed by NCCN staff and a working group of PC experts from 11 NCCN Member Institutions under the auspices of the NCCN Best Practices Committee. The survey was piloted and refined by 3 working group members and sent electronically to all 26 NCCN Member Institutions. NCCN staff and working group leaders analyzed the survey data. Results: A total of 22 of 26 institutions responded (85%). All respondents (100%) reported an inpatient PC consult service (staffed by an average of 6.8 full-time equivalents [FTEs], seeing 1,031 consults/year with an average length of stay [LOS] of 10 days). A total of 91% of respondents had clinic-based PC (with an average of 469 consults/year, staffed by an average of 6.8 FTEs, and a 17-day wait time). For clinics, a comanagement care delivery model was more common than strict consultation. Home-based PC (23%) and inpatient PC units (32%) were less prevalent. Notably, 80% of institutions reported insufficient PC capacity compared with demand. Across PC settings, referrals for patients with solid tumors were more common than for hematologic malignancies. Automatic or “triggered” referrals were rare. The most common services provided were symptom management (100%) and advance care planning (96%). Most programs were funded through fee-for-service billing and institutional support. Partnerships with accountable care organizations and bundled payment arrangements were infrequent. PC program data collection and institutional funding for PC research were variable across institutions. Conclusions: Despite the prevalence of PC inpatient and clinic services among participating NCCN Member Institutions, PC demand still exceeds capacity. Opportunities exist for expansion of home-based PC and inpatient PC units, optimizing referrals, research, and payer collaborations. Background: ASCO and IOM recommend palliative care (PC) across health care settings for patients with serious illnesses, including cancer. This study provides an overview of the current availability, structure, and basic quality of PC services within NCCN Member Institutions. Methods: A PC survey was developed by NCCN staff and a working group of PC experts from 11 NCCN Member Institutions under the auspices of the NCCN Best Practices Committee. The survey was piloted and refined by 3 working group members and sent electronically to all 26 NCCN Member Institutions. NCCN staff and working group leaders analyzed the survey data. Results: A total of 22 of 26 institutions responded (85%). All respondents (100%) reported an inpatient PC consult service (staffed by an average of 6.8 full-time equivalents [FTEs], seeing 1,031 consults/year with an average length of stay [LOS] of 10 days). A total of 91% of respondents had clinic-based PC (with an average of 469 consults/year, staffed by an average of 6.8 FTEs, and a 17-day wait time). For clinics, a comanagement care delivery model was more common than strict consultation. Home-based PC (23%) and inpatient PC units (32%) were less prevalent. Notably, 80% of institutions reported insufficient PC capacity compared with demand. Across PC settings, referrals for patients with solid tumors were more common than for hematologic malignancies. Automatic or “triggered” referrals were rare. The most common services provided were symptom management (100%) and advance care planning (96%). Most programs were funded through fee-for-service billing and institutional support. Partnerships with accountable care organizations and bundled payment arrangements were infrequent. PC program data collection and institutional funding for PC research were variable across institutions. Conclusions: Despite the prevalence of PC inpatient and clinic services among participating NCCN Member Institutions, PC demand still exceeds capacity. Opportunities exist for expansion of home-based PC and inpatient PC units, optimizing referrals, research, and payer collaborations.

Background: Telemedicine visits reduce the physical and financial burdens associated with in-person appointments, especially for patients with serious illness. Little is known about patient and caregiver preferences regarding telemedicine visit timing and the discussion of sensitive topics by telemedicine. Objective: To characterize the experience of patients with serious illness and their caregivers receiving palliative care (PC) by telemedicine. Design: Mixed-methods telephone survey. Setting/Subjects: Patients and family caregivers who had at least one telemedicine visit with the outpatient PC team at our urban academic medical center. Results: A total of 35 patients and 15 caregivers were surveyed. Patient mean age was 61 years, 49% had cancer, and 86% were Caucasian. Caregiver mean age was 62 years. Mean satisfaction with PC telemedicine visits was 8.9 out of 10 for patients; 8.8 for caregivers. Patients (97%) and caregivers (100%) felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics over video. Participants felt telemedicine was an acceptable format to discuss most sensitive topics but 53% of caregivers preferred to receive bad news in person. Participants valued the convenience of telemedicine; they had concerns about rapport building and desired a more user-friendly telemedicine platform. Conclusions: Patients with serious illness and their caregivers rated telemedicine visits highly and felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics by video. Concerns included rapport building and telemedicine platform setup and quality. The rapid growth of telemedicine during coronavirus disease 2019 creates an imperative for research to understand the impact on the quality of care and mitigate any negative effects of telemedicine within a diverse population of patients.

Physical activity has frequently been reported to decrease the risk of colon cancer in men, but data on the relation of physical activity to colon cancer risk in women have generally been less consistent. To further investigate the relationship of physical activity with colon cancer risk in women, we studied a cohort of 31,783 US women participating in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project Follow‐up Study. Information on daily physical activity over the past year was ascertained using a self‐administered questionnaire at study baseline. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) relating physical activity to the risk of incident colon cancer. During 270,325 person‐years of follow‐up, 243 colon cancer cases were identified. No association was observed between physical activity and the subsequent risk of colon cancer. The multivariable RRs of colon cancer across increasing quintiles of total physical activity were 1.0, 1.45, 1.16, 1.27 and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.75; p_trend = 0.77). The multivariable RRs comparing women at the extremes of moderate and vigorous physical activity, respectively, were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.62) and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.55). The relationship between physical activity and colon cancer risk did not vary by anatomic subsite or across subgroups defined by age, body mass, dietary fiber intake, menopausal status, menopausal hormone use or aspirin use. The results of this large prospective cohort study among women do not support the hypothesis that physical activity is related to a lower incidence of colon cancer.