Feasibility and delivery of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice among racially diverse bladder and prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of enrollment and collecting patient-reported outcome (PRO) data as part of routine clinical urologic care for bladder and prostate cancer patients and examine overall patterns and racial variations in PRO use and symptom reports over time. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited 76 patients (n = 29 Black and n = 47 White) with prostate or bladder cancer at a single, comprehensive cancer center. The majority of prostate cancer patients had intermediate risk (57%) disease and underwent either radiation or prostatectomy. Over half (58%) of bladder cancer patients had muscle invasive disease and underwent cystectomy. Patients were asked to complete PRO symptom surveys using their preferred mode [web- or phone-based interactive voice response (IVR)]. Symptom summary reports were shared with providers during visits. Surveys were completed at 3 time points and assessed urinary, sexual, gastrointestinal, anxiety/depression, and sleep symptoms. Feasibility of enrollment and survey completion were calculated, and linear mixed effects models estimated differences in outcomes by race and time. RESULTS: Sixty three percent of study participants completed all PRO measures at all 3 time points. Black patients were more likely to select IVR as their survey mode (40% vs. 13%, P < 0.05), and less likely to complete all surveys (55% vs. 74%, P = 0.13). Patients using IVR were also less likely to complete all surveys (41% vs. 69%, P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Reported preferences for survey mode and completion rates differ by race, which may influence survey completion rates and highlight potential obstacles for equitable implementation of PROs into clinical care.

Workforce Characteristics in Urology.

INTRODUCTION: In this study we holistically describe and characterize the current state of urology practice by evaluating compensation, workload and practice factors as they relate to our demographic makeup as a specialty. METHODS: We collaborated with the American Urological Association to query its domestic membership of practicing urologists regarding socioeconomic, workforce and quality of life issues. The survey consisted of 26 questions and took approximately 13 minutes to complete. A total of 733 responders had complete data for the factors statistically analyzed in the study. RESULTS: Mean yearly compensation for urologists surveyed was $404,755 and median compensation was $380,000 (IQR $300,000-480,000). Female respondents had a significantly lower median yearly compensation vs males ($318,422 vs $400,000) on univariate and multivariate analysis. Respondents reported a median of 60 work hours per week (IQR 50-60) and the median number of call days per month was 7 (IQR 5-10). Of the respondents 62% indicated that they use advanced practice providers in their practice. In addition, 30% reported employed status, 49% reported self-employed status and 21% reported academic status. Overall 20% of respondents plan to retire within 5 years and 40% within 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Higher income was associated with greater job satisfaction and hourly wage appeared to decrease at increased work hours per week. Several workplace and demographic factors drive compensation, number of hours worked per week, number of call days per month and job satisfaction.

Patient-reported outcome measures in urology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many urologic treatments have similar clinical outcomes, necessitating alternative methods to discriminate between options. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become the new standard for evaluating the patient experience, and their use has drastically increased over the past decade. The purpose of this review is to discuss the status of PROMs in urology, highlight commonly used tools and address their future direction. RECENT FINDINGS: An increasing number of urology-specific PROMs tools have been developed and validated. An increased focus on patient-centered care has provided an impetus for their rise in use. Implementation of PROMs has transitioned from being primarily descriptive in nature to producing actionable findings. Many PROMs are now implemented in daily clinical practice. The future of PROMs will involve new instrument development, integration into clinical practice and the use of PROMs as performance measures. SUMMARY: PROMs are effective tools for characterizing symptom burden and health-related quality of life. With increasing clinical implementation, PROMs are playing an increasing role in patients' clinical decision-making.