Voleti, Sandeep S.

Abstract Introduction Recent literature suggests growing rates of malpractice claims against Urologists, with the incidence of being sued seeming to be unrelated to one’s professional reputation. These cases provide insight into errors that may lead to litigation. Given national trends of rising malpractice cases, estimates that a Urologist can expect to be sued at least twice in their careers are likely underestimates. Malpractice cases can give insight into the common medical errors rising to the level of litigation. Given the elective nature of procedures within sexual medicine, understanding litigation related to these cases is crucial. Objective We aim to analyze malpractice suits related to men’s health and highlight clinical presentations and legal outcomes. Methods Per STROBE guidelines, we searched the publicly available Thomson Reuters Westlaw legal database for “jury verdicts and settlements” from January 1970 to August 2023 to identify medical malpractice cases in Urology. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, alleged error, and legal outcomes were abstracted during full case review by an independent screener. Cases related to men’s sexual health or fertility that named a urologist as the defendant were fully analyzed. Results A total of 553 Urology cases were extracted, with 23 men’s health related cases subsequently analyzed and summarized in Table 1. The most common conditions associated with litigation were erectile dysfunction (penile prosthesis) (39%), epidydimal pathology (13%), and varicocele (13%). The most common allegations were misdiagnosis (26%), surgical complication (22%), lack of informed consent (22%), and violation of standard of care (22%). Of the 23 cases, 57% ruled “no liability” in favor of the urologist, 39% ruled in favor of the plaintiff with a median award of $335,000 (IQR = 100,000-450,000), and one was settled for $316,338. Among cases ruled as negligent, performing the incorrect procedure, surgical complications, and violating the standard of care were prominent allegations. Florida (26%) and Pennsylvania (17%) had the most cases in this sample. Of note, there were no cases for penile plication, plaque excision, microsurgical cord denervation, vasectomy reversal, or sperm retrieval, and only one for vasectomy. Conclusions This study characterizes malpractice cases related to men’s sexual health naming urologists as defendants. Despite fear of litigation, this review of the Westlaw database revealed only 23 cases related to men’s health since 1970. Moreover, the majority of cases ruled in favor of the Urologist. Obtaining comprehensive informed consent, following national guidelines, and responding appropriately to surgical complications may minimize likelihood of litigation and maximize patient outcomes. Disclosure No.

ABSTRACT Background Large language model (LLM) chatbots, a form of artificial intelligence (AI) that excels at prompt‐based interactions and mimics human conversation, have emerged as a tool for providing patients with information about urologic conditions. We aimed to examine the quality of information related to benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery from four chatbots and how they would respond to sample patient messages. Methods We identified the top three queries in Google Trends related to “treatment for enlarged prostate.” These were entered into ChatGPT (OpenAI), Bard (Google), Bing AI (Microsoft), and Doximity GPT (Doximity), both unprompted and prompted for specific criteria (optimized). The chatbot‐provided answers to each query were evaluated for overall quality by three urologists using the DISCERN instrument. Readability was measured with the built‐in Flesch–Kincaid reading level tool in Microsoft Word. To assess the ability of chatbots to answer patient questions, we prompted the chatbots with a clinical scenario related to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, followed by 10 questions that the National Institutes of Health recommends patients ask before surgery. Accuracy and completeness of responses were graded with Likert scales. Results Without prompting, the quality of information was moderate across all chatbots but improved significantly with prompting (mean [SD], 3.3 [1.2] vs. 4.4 [0.7] out of 5; p < 0.001). When answering simulated patient messages, the chatbots were accurate (mean [SD], 5.6 [0.4] out of 6) and complete (mean [SD], 2.8 [0.3] out of 3). Additionally, 98% (39/40) had a median score of 5 or higher for accuracy, which corresponds to “nearly all correct.” The readability was poor, with a mean (SD) Flesch–Kincaid reading level grade of 12.1 (1.3) (unprompted). Conclusions LLM chatbots hold promise for patient education, but their effectiveness is limited by the need for careful prompting from the user and by responding at a reading level higher than that of most Americans (grade 8). Educating patients and physicians on optimal LLM interaction is crucial to unlock the full potential of chatbots.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers, and health care providers with impact on morbidity and mortality. In this study, we report on a standardized approach to describe the prevalence and predictors for FH as part of routine clinical workflow. We also report on the association of FH with survival in our cancer patient population. METHODS: This study includes patients who completed a FH screen at least once between 2018 and 2020. Demographics, disease state, and mortality data were extracted from the medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine association of sociodemographic and disease variables with FH. By using propensity score weighting to account for differences in demographic and clinical factors between patients with and without FH, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between FH and survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 31,154 patients. FH was reported by 14% (n = 4,250) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of having FH ( P < .001 for all) was reported by racial/ethnic minority patients; those who were unemployed/disabled, single, or divorced; patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods; and those who were self-pay or had government insurance. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Patients who endorsed FH had a lower survival (hazard ratio for mortality 1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study identified key groups more likely to report FH in a relatively affluent population at a large cancer center and showed an adverse association between FH and survival. Further research is needed to develop clinical care pathways for patients at high risk for worse financial and clinical outcomes.

Abstract Background: Self-reported financial hardship (FH) amongst cancer patients is increasingly becoming a challenge for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. FH not only leads to financial struggles, significant lifestyle changes, and emotional distress, but also contributes to treatment noncompliance, affecting clinical outcomes. As treatment costs rise, it is crucial to develop efficient methods to proactively identify and alleviate FH in hematology practice. One potential approach is utilizing automated processes to identify those at highest risk of FH. At Mayo Clinic, screening for FH involves using a single financial strain question 'How hard is it for you to pay for the very basics like food, housing, medical care, and heating?' which all cancer patients answer annually as part of the institution's Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) assessment. Answers are on a five-point scale including not hard at all, not very hard, somewhat hard, hard, and very hard. In this study, we assess the prevalence and predictors for FH (denoted by a response of "Very hard" "Hard" or "Somewhat hard") amongst the Mayo Clinic hematologic malignancy patient population. Our study objective was to determine if this automated process could identify those at risk for FH. Methods: Patients who received care for hematologic malignancies (lymphoma, leukemia, plasma disorders, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disorders, and other heme malignancies) at any of the Mayo Clinic cancer centers (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida) and who had completed the SDOH screen at least once were included in this study. The electronic medical record (EMR) and Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry were utilized to extract demographic and disease variables. Patient's home zip code was used to determine rural/urban residence, distance from cancer center, and the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a measure of socioeconomic disadvantage based on home zip code (ranging from 1-100, with 100 representing the most disadvantaged). Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine predictor variables for FH in this patient population. Results: The final cohort included 10,024 patients from 2018 to 2020. Median age was 64.6 years (IQR 58.1,73.7), 58% were male, and 79% married. Race/ethnicity composition was 94% White (n=9,268), 2.5% Black (n=246), 0.4% American Indian/Alaskan Native (44), and 4% Hispanic (n=360). Fifty-six percent of patients had Medicare and 41% had commercial insurance. Fifty percent were retired, 40% were working/students, and 72% were urban residents. Mean ADI was 41.2. Fifty-six percent of patients had lymphomas, 23.5% had plasma cell disorders, 8.5% had leukemias, 6.8% had other hematological malignancies, and 5.5% had myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms. FH was reported by 12.8% (n=1286) of the patients. Table 1 shows the results of the multivariable model. A significantly higher likelihood of endorsing FH was noted in Hispanic vs non-Hispanics, Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native groups vs whites, Disabled/Unemployed vs working, Medicaid, Medicare, and Self-Pay groups vs commercial insurance, higher ADI (5 th quintile vs 1 st), and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disorder and other hematologic malignancy vs lymphoma patients. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Conclusion: Our study used automated data extraction from the EMR to efficiently identify predictors of FH in hematologic cancer patients. Employing a dichotomized and automated "flag" for FH, particularly if incorporated in the EMR, could ease the identification of SDOH issues, facilitate timely connection to appropriate resources, and help provide better patient-centered care. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Sanofi: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Fonseca: OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Aduro: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Griffin: Exact Sciences: Research Funding.

6594 Background: Patient reported financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers and healthcare providers. As treatment costs escalate, it is imperative to develop effective strategies to proactively recognize and mitigate FH within oncology practice. Using automated processes to screen and refer patients to appropriate resources is a potential option. At Mayo Clinic, screening for FH involves using a single financial strain question ‘ How hard is it for you to pay for the very basics like food, housing, medical care, and heating?’ completed by all cancer patients annually as part of the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) assessment. In this study, we describe the prevalence and predictors for FH (denoted by the answer ‘hard and very hard’) in our patient population. Methods: Patients receiving cancer care at the three Mayo Clinic sites (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida) who completed the FH screen at least once were included in this study. Demographics (age, gender, race/ ethnicity, insurance, employment status, marital status, and zip code) and disease state data for included patients was extracted from the EMR and Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry. Disease state was categorized by type of cancer (hematological or solid malignancy) and cancer stage. Zip code was used to derive median income, rural/urban residence and distance from the cancer center. Multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to examine factors associated with FH. Results: The final study cohort included 31,969 patients with median age 66 years (IQR 57,73), 51% females, and 76% married. Race/ethnicity composition was 93% White, 3% Black, and 4% Hispanic. 52% of patients had Medicare and 43% had commercial insurance. Other notable factors included 48% retired, 41% working/ students, 76% married, and 72% urban residents. Median time from cancer diagnosis was 1.1 year (IQR 0.1, 3.8) and median income was $64,406 (IQR 53,067, 82,038). 31% of patients had hematological malignancies, 20% of the cancers for which staging information was available were metastatic. FH was reported by 4% (n = 1194) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of endorsing FH (p < 0.001 for all) was noted in Hispanic (OR 1.64), Black (OR 1.84), American Indian/Alaskan native (OR 2.02), below median income (OR 1.48), rural (OR 1.17), self-pay (OR 2.77), Medicaid (OR 2.29), Medicare (OR 1.43), unemployed/disabled (OR 2.39), single (OR 2.07), or divorced (OR 2.43) patients. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Conclusions: Our study successfully leveraged the EMR to identify key sociodemographic groups more likely to report FH. An electronic trigger to flag such patients at high-risk of FH and proactively address FH is currently being developed.

Emergency physician empathy and communication is increasingly important and influences patient satisfaction. This study investigated if there is a need for improvement in provider empathy and communication in our emergency department and what areas could be targeted for future improvement. Patients cared for by emergency physicians with the lowest satisfaction scores were surveyed within 1 week of discharge. Patients rated their emergency provider’s empathy and communication and provided feedback on the patient–provider interaction. Compared to survey responses nationally, our providers fell between the 10th and 25th percentiles for all questions, except question 5 (making a plan of action with [the patient]) which was between the 5th and 10th percentile. Areas most frequently cited for improvement were “wanting to know why” (N = 30), “time is short” (N = 15), and “listen to the patient” (N = 13). Survey percentiles and open-ended suggestions demonstrate a need for providers to give thorough explanations, spend more time with the patient, and demonstrate active listening. These themes can be used to strengthen the provider–patient relationship.