Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1016/j.adro.2020.09.019 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.adro.2020.09.019 33083637!7564308!33083637     free     free     free       Adv+Radiat+Oncol 2021 ; 6 (1): 100579 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33083637|t=2021. Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities |pdf=|usr=}}{{33083637}} gab.com Text Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities JO: Adv Radiat Oncol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33083637 #FOAvip PURPOSE: This study aimed to report our initial experience with weekly tele-video "virtual" on-treatment visits (vOTVs), describe the logistics of implementation, report the results of patient and physician surveys, and discuss the barriers, limitations, and benefits of vOTVs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: vOTVs were piloted at 2 centers and within 1 week were expanded to 4 additional centers. Patients participating in vOTVs were surveyed about their satisfaction with vOTVs, the quality of vOTVs, and confidence in their physician's ability to manage their care through vOTVs, as well as their support of and preferences related to vOTVs. Participating physicians were surveyed about their comfort and satisfaction with vOTVs. Medical directors at nonparticipating centers within our network were surveyed regarding their reasoning for not using vOTVs. RESULTS: In week 1, 72 of 81 patients between 2 pilot centers were seen using vOTVs. In week 2, 189 of 211 patients were seen using vOTVs at 6 centers. Patient satisfaction with and confidence in their physician's ability to address their concerns through the vOTV was high at 4.75 on a 5-point scale. Patients were overall very supportive (4.67) and found the quality of the visits to be as good as or better than their prior in-person weekly on-treatment visit (3.75). Physicians participating in the vOTVs felt very comfortable in their ability to manage patients through this platform (5.0) and on average did not report any difference in terms of efficiency of visits (3.0). CONCLUSIONS: vOTVs were easy to implement and well received by patients and participating physicians. Our experience suggests that vOTVs can be implemented rapidly using available technology and with a high degree of patient and physician satisfaction during this pandemic with similar efficiency to in-person on-treatment visits. Twit Text FOAVip Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities ????Adv Radiat Oncol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33083637 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33083637 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33083637}}</ref> Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Barriers, Limitations, Benefits, and Opportunities #MMPMID33083637 Roof KS; Butler JM Jr; Thakkar VV; Doline RM; Kuremsky JG; Konefal JB; McCammon RJ Adv Radiat Oncol 2021[Jan]; 6 (1): 100579 PMID33083637show ga PURPOSE: This study aimed to report our initial experience with weekly tele-video "virtual" on-treatment visits (vOTVs), describe the logistics of implementation, report the results of patient and physician surveys, and discuss the barriers, limitations, and benefits of vOTVs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: vOTVs were piloted at 2 centers and within 1 week were expanded to 4 additional centers. Patients participating in vOTVs were surveyed about their satisfaction with vOTVs, the quality of vOTVs, and confidence in their physician's ability to manage their care through vOTVs, as well as their support of and preferences related to vOTVs. Participating physicians were surveyed about their comfort and satisfaction with vOTVs. Medical directors at nonparticipating centers within our network were surveyed regarding their reasoning for not using vOTVs. RESULTS: In week 1, 72 of 81 patients between 2 pilot centers were seen using vOTVs. In week 2, 189 of 211 patients were seen using vOTVs at 6 centers. Patient satisfaction with and confidence in their physician's ability to address their concerns through the vOTV was high at 4.75 on a 5-point scale. Patients were overall very supportive (4.67) and found the quality of the visits to be as good as or better than their prior in-person weekly on-treatment visit (3.75). Physicians participating in the vOTVs felt very comfortable in their ability to manage patients through this platform (5.0) and on average did not report any difference in terms of efficiency of visits (3.0). CONCLUSIONS: vOTVs were easy to implement and well received by patients and participating physicians. Our experience suggests that vOTVs can be implemented rapidly using available technology and with a high degree of patient and physician satisfaction during this pandemic with similar efficiency to in-person on-treatment visits. ?Virtual On-Treatment Visits: Implementation, Patient Perspectives, Bar(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing