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.

Strategies for Combatting Health Disparities in Prioritization Schema for Medically-Necessary Time-Sensitive Orthopaedic Surgeries.

A decrease in non-emergent procedure volume was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic to conserve protective equipment, increase hospital capacity, and limit nosocomial infection. Decreasing COVID-19 infection rates, paired with increasing hospital financial pressure and concerns for patient welfare, have prompted the development of guidelines for re-introduction of medically-necessary time-sensitive (MeNTS) procedures. Such protocols have received criticism for potentially perpetuating inequities disfavoring vulnerable populations. Limited access to testing supplies and protective equipment, coupled with higher incidence of medical comorbidities attributable to social determinants of health, disadvantages vulnerable populations in seemingly objective prioritization schema. Here, we detail both an analysis of current guidelines as well as strategies aimed at mitigating these disparities (including prioritizing essential infrastructure workers, implementing questionnaires, improving scheduling communication, tracking patients via ZIP codes and insurance status, facilitating post-operative rehabilitation, acknowledging physician bias, and favoring lottery selection over first-come, first-served). These guidelines and strategies can apply to future pandemics and even routine prioritization schema.

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.

Broadening the Scope: A Qualitative Study of Pathologists' Attitudes Toward Patient-Pathologist Interactions.

OBJECTIVES: This study qualitatively explored and described pathologists' attitudes toward patient interaction. METHODS: In a survey to pathologists, we asked, "How interested would you be in meeting with patients to discuss their pathology report and show them microscopic images of their tissue?" Then, we asked "Why," followed by a free-text box. We asked pathologists to assume that their time would be adequately compensated and that patients' treating clinicians had already told them their diagnosis. Physician age, gender, rank, and type of practice were also collected. RESULTS: We surveyed 197 pathologists, 86% of whom were either definitely interested or interested in meeting with patients. Interest level did not differ by age, gender, or rank but was higher in academic practices than in community practices. Thematic analysis showed that pathologists believed that meeting with patients could impact (1) patients, through cognitive and emotional pathways; (2) pathologists, through patient contact and job satisfaction; and (3) the field of pathology, through quality of care and a redefined image of the specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists' interest level in meeting with patients was high. Potential impacts on patients, pathologists, and the field of pathology were identified.

The Lines That Held Us: Assessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence are apparent. Race is a sociocultural construct, necessitating investigation into how sociocultural factors contribute. METHODS: This cross-sectional study linked laboratory data of adult patients between February 29 and May 15, 2020 with socio-demographics variables from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS). Medical sites included healthcare organizations in Michigan, New York, North Carolina, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Race was treated as a proxy for racism and not biological essentialism. Laboratory data included patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, test result, test location, and residential ZIP code. ACS data included economic and educational variables contributing to an SES Index, population density, proportion Medicaid, and racial composition for corresponding ZIP code. Associations between race/socioeconomic variables and test results were examined using odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Of 126 452 patients [mean (SD) age 51.9 (18.4) years; 52 747 (41.7%) men; 68 856 (54.5%) White and 27 805 (22.0%) Black], 18 905 (15.0%) tested positive. Of positive tests, 5238 (SD 27.7%) were White and 7223 (SD 38.2%) were Black. Black race increased the odds of a positive test; this finding was consistent across sites [OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.95-2.29)]. When subset by race, higher SES increased the odds of a positive test for White patients [OR 1.10 (95% CI 1.05-1.16)] but decreased the odds for Black patients [OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99)]. Black patients, but not White patients, who tested positive overwhelmingly resided in more densely populated areas. CONCLUSIONS: Black race was associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity and the relationship between SES and test positivity differed by race, suggesting the impact of socioeconomic status on test positivity is race-specific.

Understanding the Link between Neighborhoods and Kidney Disease.

Neighborhoods are where we live, learn, work, pray, and play. Growing evidence indicates that neighborhoods are an important determinant of health. The built features of our neighborhoods, such as the ways in which the streets are designed and connected and the availability of green spaces and transit stops, as well as the social features, such as the trust among neighbors and the perceptions of safety, may influence health through multiple pathways, such as access to important resources, psychosocial stress, and health behaviors. In particular, the extant literature consistently documents an association between neighborhood features and renal-associated conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. There is also some evidence suggesting an association between neighborhood poverty and ESKD. The link between neighborhood and earlier stages of CKD, however, has been less clear, with most studies documenting no association. It may be that the neighborhood measures used in previous studies do not capture features of the neighborhood important for earlier stages of disease development and progression. It may also be that our current biomarkers (e.g., eGFR) and urine protein are not able to pick up very early forms of renal damage because of the kidney's overall high reserve capacity. This paper critically reviews the state of the literature on neighborhood and renal disease, with recommendations for neighborhood measures in future research. Neighborhoods are designed, built, and informed by policy, and thus, they are amenable to intervention, making them a potentially powerful way to improve renal health and reduce health inequalities at the population level.

The Patient-Pathologist Consultation Program: A Mixed-Methods Study of Interest and Motivations in Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT.­: There is a wide disconnect between patients and the pathologists who make their diagnoses. Recent literature highlights successful programs in which patients meet with pathologists to review their pathology reports and see their tissue under a microscope. We do not know how many patients are interested in such a service, nor do we understand what drives interested patients to want to meet with their pathologist and what specific value it may provide. OBJECTIVE.­: To quantify patient interest in a patient-pathologist consultation program and qualitatively assess motivations for patient interest or disinterest. DESIGN.­: Subjects were recruited from an academic cancer center and a local community cancer support group to respond to a survey about their interest in a patient-pathologist consultation program. Both online forms and paper surveys were available. The online survey was promoted via social media. RESULTS.­: There was a high level of patient interest, with 75% of respondents indicating they were definitely interested in a patient-pathologist consultation program. Key themes of interest were enhanced understanding of the diagnosis and disease, an opportunity to demystify the diagnostic process, and the perception that additional knowledge would empower the patient. CONCLUSIONS.­: In a select group of cancer patients, there is a very high level of interest in a patient-pathologist consultation program. Pathologists, clinicians, and hospital leadership should work together to pilot these programs in diverse settings. Additional quantitative work to scale interventions for the interested population and qualitative work to design effective, patient-centered consultation programs and to assess value are needed.