RESUMO
Introduction and Objectives: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for imperative vs elective indications. PATIENT AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a multinational database of 3802 adults who underwent RAPN for elective and imperative indications. Laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy (PN) were excluded. Baseline data for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score and PADUA score were examined. Patients undergoing RAPN for an imperative indication were matched to those having surgery for an elective indication using propensity scores in a 1:3 ratio. Primary outcomes included organ ischaemic time, operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), rate of blood transfusions, Clavien-Dindo complications, conversion to radical nephrectomy (RN) and positive surgical margin (PSM) status. RESULTS: After propensity-score matching for baseline variables, a total of 304 patients (76 imperative vs 228 elective indications) were included in the final analysis. No significant differences were found between groups for ischaemia time (19.9 vs 19.8 min; P = 0.94), operating time (186 vs 180 min; P = 0.55), EBL (217 vs 190 mL; P = 0.43), rate of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 3.7%; P = 0.51), or Clavien-Dindo complications (P = 0.31). A 38.6% (SD 47.9) decrease in Day-1 postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was observed in the imperative indication group and an 11.3% (SD 45.1) decrease was observed in the elective indication group (P < 0.005). There were no recorded cases of permanent or temporary dialysis. There were no conversions to RN in the imperative group, and seven conversions (5.6%) in the elective group (P = 0.69). PSMs were seen in 1.4% (1/76) of the imperative group and in 3.3% of the elective group (7/228; P = 0.69). CONCLUSION: We conclude that RAPN is feasible and safe for imperative indications and demonstrates similar outcomes to those achieved for elective indications.
