Dataset Information

Physician and patient concordance in reporting of appropriateness and prioritization for cataract surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Determine the association between physician-deemed and patient-reported appropriateness and prioritization for cataract surgery.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of 471 patients of 7 ophthalmologists referred for cataract surgery. Ophthalmologists rated patients for cataract surgery appropriateness and prioritization using a visual analogue scale of 0-10 preoperatively. All patients completed the eCAPS Quality of Life (QoL), while 313 completed the Catquest-9SF and EQ-5D questionnaires. Regression analyses were applied to determine demographic, clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) associated with appropriateness and prioritization.

Results

Two clinical factors (study eye and fellow eye best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA)), 2 eCAPS (night driving difficulty, ability to take care of local errands), and 2 Catquest-9SF PROMs (recognizing faces, seeing to walk on uneven ground) were associated with appropriateness. In multivariable regression, the rating physician, 2 clinical criteria (study eye BCVA, anticipated postoperative BCVA) and 1 eCAPS QoL (night driving difficulty) were associated with appropriateness. Prioritization was associated with low income, 8 clinical criteria, 9 eCAPS, 5 Catquest-9SF, and 1 EQ-5D PROMs. In multivariable regression, 1 clinical criterion (study eye BCVA), 2 eCAPS QoL (night driving difficulty, ability to take care of local errands), and 2 Catquest-9SF PROMs (seeing prices, seeing to walk on uneven ground) were significantly associated.

Conclusions

The eCAPS and Catquest-9SF questionnaires show some concordance with physician-deemed appropriateness, and more with prioritization. Binary conversions of PROM scales provide similar modelling, with minimal loss of explanatory power. As physician-deemed appropriateness and prioritization do not completely capture the patient perspective, PROMs may have a role in cataract surgery decision-making frameworks.

SUBMITTER: Schlenker MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8232411 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Accurately tracking health-related quality-of-life after radical prostatectomy is critical to counseling patients and improving technique. Physicians consistently overestimate functional recovery. We measured concordance between surgeon-assessed and patient-reported outcomes and evaluated a novel method to provide feedback to surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men treated with radical prostatectomy self-completed the International Index of Erectile Function-6 questionnaire at each postoperative visit. Separately, physicians graded sexual function on a 5-point scale. International Index of Erectile Function -6 score<22 and grade ?3 defined patient-reported and physician-assessed erectile dysfunction (ED), respectively. Feedback on concordance was given to physicians starting in May 2013 with the implementation of the Amplio feedback system. Chi-square tests were used to assess agreement proportions and linear regression to evaluate changes in agreement after implementation. RESULTS:From 2009 to 2015, 3,053 men completed at least 1 postprostatectomy questionnaire and had a concurrent independent physician-reported outcome. Prior to implementation of feedback in 2013, patients and physicians were consistent as to ED 83% of the time; in 10% of cases, physicians overestimated function; in 7% of cases, physicians, but not patients reported ED. Agreement increased after implementation of feedback but this was not statistically significant, likely owing to a ceiling effect. Supporting this hypothesis, increase in agreement postfeedback was greater during late follow-up (?12mo), where baseline agreement was lower compared to earlier follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Agreement was higher than expected at baseline; implementation of feedback regarding discrepancies between patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes did not further improve agreement significantly. Our observed high rate of agreement may be partly attributed to our institutional practice of systematically capturing patient-reported outcomes as part of normal clinical care.