Current Oncology Reports

, 19:52 | Cite as

The Role of Telemedicine in Providing Thoracic Oncology Care to Remote Areas of British Columbia

Lung Cancer (JM Johnson, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Lung Cancer


Purpose of review

The purpose of this study is to review the role of telemedicine in providing oncology care; we describe our long-standing, high-volume telemedicine experience.

Recent findings

The Interior Health Thoracic Surgical Group (IHTSG) uses telemedicine, through Virtual Thoracic Surgical Clinics (VTSC), to provide service to remote patients. The IHTSG serves a population of 1.01 million people over an area of 807,538 km2 (1.3 persons/km2) in the Interior and North of British Columbia, Canada. Between 2003 and 2015, the IHTSG conducted 15,073 telemedicine patient encounters at 63 geographic sites. Telemedicine saved these patients a total travel distance of 11.5 million km—an average of 766 km per patient. VTSC supports and strengthens the Hub and Spoke model of healthcare delivery—patients residing remotely can easily access centrally delivered service.


Telemedicine makes specialized care available to all patients by overcoming a major impediment to access, namely distance.


Telemedicine Rural Thoracic surgery Hub and Spoke model Oncology Patient care 



We thank surgeons Shaun Deen, Anand Jugnauth, Andrew Luoma, and Bill Nelems for their contributions to the thoracic surgery telemedicine program.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Michael F. Humer and Barbara G. Campling declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Bird KT. Teleconsultation: a new health information exchange system, Third Annual Report to the Veterans Administration. Washington DC. 1971.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bashshur RL. On the definition and evaluation of telemedicine. Telemed J. 1995;1:19–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Organization for Standardization [Internet]. International SOS breaks virtual ground; 2016 Mar 22 [cited 2016 Nov 4] Available from: 2016.
  4. 4.
    Perednia DA, Allen A. Telemedicine technology and clinical applications. Jama. 1995;273:483–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:736–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McLean S, Sheikh A, Cresswell K, et al. The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: a systematic overview. PLoS One. 2013;8:e71238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mistry H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doolittle GC, Spaulding AO. Providing access to oncology care for rural patients via telemedicine. J Oncol Pract. 2006;2:228–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doolittle GC, Allen A. Practising oncology via telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 1997;3:63–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitamura C, Zurawel-Balaura L, Wong RKS. How effective is video consultation in clinical oncology? A systematic review. Curr Oncol. 2010;17:11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sabesan S. Medical models of teleoncology: current status and future directions. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2014;10:200–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allen A, Hayes J. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine in a rural clinic. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1693.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mair F, Whitten P, May C, et al. Patients’ perceptions of a telemedicine specialty clinic. J Telemed Telecare. 2000;6:36–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor M, Khoo K, Saltman D, et al. The use of telemedicine to care for cancer patients in remote areas. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(185):Abstract 6538.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weinerman BH, Barnett J, Loyola M, et al. Telehealth—a change in a practice model in oncology. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18:391–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Khare S, Chaudhary Y. Telemedicine and patient satisfaction: analyzing the future. Innov J Med Health Sci. 2016;6:93–7. This literature review on patient satisfaction with telemedicine considers perspectives of the patient, the provider, and the healthcare organization. We are reminded that it is the patient dimension and not the technology that is the core value of telemedicine, and this fact should guide the direction and focus of telemedicine research.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pong RW, Pitblado JR. Geographic distribution of physicians in Canada: beyond how many and where, Canadian Institute for Health Information. Ottawa. 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Gorman LD, Hogenbirk JC, Warry W. Clinical telemedicine utilization in Ontario over the Ontario Telemedicine etwork. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22:473–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humer M, Luoma A, Nelems B. Distant thoracic surgical patient assessment in rural British Columbia: the evolution from on-site clinics to telemedicine clinics, 1985–2005. BC Med J. 2006;48:279–84.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Schwam L. Telehealth: seven strategies to successfully implement disruptive technology and transform health care. Health Aff. 2014;33:200–6. Telemedicine is disruptive technology—it has changed how we provide care. This paper describes seven patient-centered strategies for implementing telemedicine.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DiMatteo MR. The role of the physician in the emerging health care environment. West J Med. 1998;168:328–33.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goold SD, Lipkin M. The doctor–patient relationship: challenges, opportunities, and strategies. J gen Intern med. 1999;14:S26–33.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ha JF, Longnecker N. Doctor-patient communication: a review. Ochsner J. 2010;10:38–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Devarakonda S. Making rural healthcare in India affordable, available and accessible. Rural Remote Health [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 14]; 16:3476. Available from:, 2016. The Hub and Spoke model, when applied to health care and supported by information and communications technology (i.e., telemedicine), sustains rural communities while also promoting specialized and centralized delivery of care .
  25. 25.
    InMotion. The Haskell Blog [blog on the Internet]. The new hub and spoke model: redirecting the flow of patient care. 2014 [cited 2016 Sept 14]. Available from: Available from:
  26. 26.
    Taylor R. Jones Lang LaSalle: [blog on the Internet]. The spoke before the hub: turning the healthcare delivery model upside down. [cited 2016 Sep 14]. Available from: 2014.
  27. 27.
    Schumacher Clinical Partners [Internet]: SG Medical Executive Council;c2015. Rural hospitals’ future depends on hub and spoke model. 2015 Mar 31 [cited 2016 Sep 14]. Available from: 2015.
  28. 28.
    • Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. State of telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:154–61. This article suggests that the direction of telehealth may change from its current focus on patient access to a future focus on patient convenience and healthcare system cost reduction.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Healthcare News and Insights [Internet] Cocchi R: Telehealth services reach record heights by 2018. Mar 2014 [cited 2016 Aug 22] Available from: 2014.
  30. 30.
    Doyle-Lindrud S. Telemedicine in oncology. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2016;20:27–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    • Asch DA. The hidden economics of telemedicine. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:801–2. This editorial challenges healthcare providers to consider the costs—both visible and hidden—resulting from rationing health care through inconvenience and unavailability; telemedicine may mitigate these costs.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hazin R, Qaddoumi I. Teleoncology: current and future applications for improving cancer care globally. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:204–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    • Pesec M, Sherertz T. Global health from a cancer care perspective. Future Oncol. 2015;11:2235–45. The burden of cancer is overwhelmingly born by low- and middle-income countries which have 80% of the world’s cancer mortality but only 5% of the global cancer care resources. Information communications technology—such as telemedicine—may advance a social justice approach to cancer care in an attempt to mitigate not only distance but also poverty.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of British Columbia, Kelowna General HospitalKelownaCanada
  2. 2.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Cancer Agency - Centre for the Southern InteriorKelownaCanada

Personalised recommendations