Patient‐centred pathology reporting improves patient experience and understanding of disease in prostate cancer care

TL;DR

Personalized pathology reports help prostate cancer patients better understand their diagnosis and retain this knowledge for at least four weeks.

Contribution

This study shows that patient-centred pathology reports improve knowledge retention in prostate cancer patients.

Findings

PCR group had significantly more correct answers on Gleason grade group and extracapsular extension compared to the standard report group.

93% of PCR recipients understood the report, and 90% felt it improved their understanding of prostate cancer.

Patient knowledge from PCR was retained for at least 4 weeks after initial receipt.

Abstract

Patient‐centred (PC) and holistic care improves patient satisfaction and health outcomes. We sought to investigate the benefit of utilising a PC pathology report in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Our study aimed to evaluate and compare patient understanding of their PCa diagnosis after RP, upon receiving either a standard histopathology report or a personalised and PC report (PCR). Moreover, we evaluated knowledge retention at 4 weeks after the initial consultation.

We invited patients undergoing RP at three metropolitan Urology clinics to participate in our randomised controlled study. Patients were randomised to receive either a PCR or standard pathology report. Patient satisfaction questionnaires (Perceived Efficacy in Patient–Physician Interactions [PEPPI], Consultation and Relational Empathy [CARE] and Communication Assessment Tool [CAT]) and a knowledge test were conducted within 72 h of the initial appointment and again at 4 weeks. Accurate recollection of Gleason grade group (GGG) and extracapsular extension (ECE) were classified as ‘correct’. Baseline demographic data included age, education, marital and employment status, pre‐op prostate specific antigen (PSA) and clinical stage. Baseline data were tested for differences between groups using the Student's t test, chi‐squared test or Fisher's exact test depending on whether data were continuous, categorical or sparse. Comparison of correctly answered ‘knowledge’ questions was analysed using chi‐squared test. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was used.

Data from 62 patients were analysed (30 standard vs. 32 PCR). No significant differences in baseline demographics were found between groups. Both groups reported high levels of satisfaction with their healthcare experiences in all domains of patient–physician rapport, empathy and communication. There were no significant differences between groups in PEPPI (p = 0.68), CAT (p = 0.39) and CARE (p = 0.66) scores, at baseline and 4 weeks. Ninety‐three per cent of patients who received the PCR understood the report while 90% felt the report added to their understanding of their PCa. Regarding patient knowledge, the PCR group had significantly more correct answers on GGG and ECE as compared with the standard report group at baseline and 4 weeks (p < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively).

Our findings demonstrate that PC pathology reports improve patient knowledge and understanding of their PCa that is retained for at least 4 weeks after initial receipt of results.

Figures