A longitudinal mixed-methods study of pathology explanation clinics in patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the role of pathology explanation clinics (PECs) in prostate cancer care and determine their impact on patients, urologic oncologists, and quality of care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 10 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were conducted before and after a PEC pilot and at the 1- and 6-month follow-up visits. Information about participants' cancer knowledge and anxiety were collected quantitatively. Documented pathologist communications and proper review of outside biopsy slides were collected. Semistructured interviews were also completed with participating urologic oncologists following the pilot. RESULTS: Pathology explanation clinics improved participants' understanding of their diagnosis, cognitively and emotionally supporting them first in their urologic oncology visit and later in making an informed treatment decision. Mean knowledge scores were high, and a minority of participants had prostate cancer anxiety. Urologic oncologists noted improved understanding and reduced anxiety among participants, enabling nuanced conversations about prognosis and management during the visit. By ensuring review of outside biopsy slides and communication of clinically significant or unexpected diagnoses, PECs supported high-quality care and patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: In this small pilot, PECs positively affected patients with prostate cancer, their clinicians, and the overall care system. Additional studies in larger populations and diverse settings will be useful.

A Mixed-Methods Study of Clinicians' Attitudes Toward Pathology Explanation Clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the attitudes of treating clinicians toward pathology explanation clinics (PECs). METHODS: Clinicians from a tertiary care academic medical center were asked, "How interested would you be in having your patient meet with a pathologist to discuss their pathology report and see their tissue under the microscope?" Clinicians ranked their interest, then expanded on concerns and benefits in a semistructured interview. Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative thematic approach. RESULTS: A total of 35 clinicians were interviewed, with 83% reporting some level of interest in PECs. Clinicians felt that highly educated and motivated patients were most likely to benefit from a PEC. Clinicians recognized that PECs could improve understanding and emotional processing but that the patient's information needs must be balanced with the potential for cognitive overload and emotional distress. When integrating the pathologist into the care team, clinicians worried about the pathologist's communication skills, care fragmentation, and increased clinician workload. If performed well, clinicians felt PECs had the potential to increase clinician efficacy and improve quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, clinicians are interested in PECs when they fulfill a patient's information needs and are optimally performed.