Citations

BackgroundCommunication failures between clinicians and dermatopathologists are prevalent. Our primary objective was to characterize the concerns and challenges of dermatopathologists posed by incomplete or inaccurate clinical information in the skin biopsy requisition form.MethodsAn explanatory sequential, mixed‐methods study design comprised of a survey sent to 1103 members of the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP), followed by two focus group sessions.ResultsA total of 54% (598/1103) of dermatopathologists completed the questionnaire. Most dermatopathologists (80%; 436/548) viewed their roles to be providers of histopathological diagnosis and a report that is clinically meaningful. Paper or electronic requisition forms were the most common communication method (85%; 458/541) and were associated with the highest rates of dissatisfaction in 36% (193/537) of respondents. Inadequacy of specimens emerged as an important factor influencing judgment of the quality of provided clinical information. 44.7% (261/584) of dermatopathologists spent 30 minutes or more on average every day searching for relevant clinical information to assist with their histopathologic interpretation.ConclusionASDP dermatopathologists expressed significant dissatisfaction with the quality of clinical information in the requisition form and the time spent gathering information necessary for accurate, timely and clinically meaningful diagnosis. These findings have implications for the quality, safety and efficiency of dermatologic care.

AbstractBackgroundShared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self‐reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter.MethodsWe surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single‐item question, ‘Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?’ Answer options were ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners).ResultsPatients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance‐adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance.ConclusionsPatients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision‐making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

Background Patient-reported signs and symptoms are often the first indication of clinically relevant lymphedema. Objective The purpose of this study was to develop and assess the diagnostic accuracy of a screening questionnaire to detect lower-extremity lymphedema (LEL) among normal-weight women and women with obesity. Design This was a cross-sectional survey study. Methods The authors reviewed existing questionnaires assessing upper-extremity lymphedema (UEL) for potential questions and worked with content experts to generate new items. A draft questionnaire with 59 items was reviewed by 5 physicians and 5 physical therapists who specialized in lymphedema management and 5 female patients with clinically confirmed secondary LEL. A revised questionnaire with 45 items was administered by mail to 186 women with clinically confirmed LEL (n=116) or UEL (n=70). A total of 99 women (53.2% of 186) completed the mailed survey, and 28 women with lymphedema who were recruited directly in a lymphedema clinic waiting area also completed the survey. A parsimonious subset of items that best discriminated patients with and without LEL was identified using chi-square tests and logistic regression. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting LEL and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR−) were estimated for the entire sample and for subsamples defined by obesity (body mass index ≥30 versus <30 kg/m2), which may confound the accurate diagnosis of LEL. Results Questionnaires were completed by 127 women (LEL group, n=88; UEL group, n=39). A sum of 13 items (score range=0–52) was the most discriminating. Using a cutoff score of ≥5 points, the sensitivity and specificity for detecting LEL among all participants were 95.5% and 86.5%, respectively (LR+=7.1, LR−=0.05), and 94.8% and 76.5%, respectively (LR+=4.0, LR−=0.07), for participants who were obese. Limitations By enumerating a sample with a high prevalence of LEL, a spectrum bias may have been introduced, which may have affected the accuracy of the screening questionnaire. Conclusions The brief, 13-item self-report questionnaire is a sensitive and specific tool for detecting clinically relevant LEL among women, including those with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2.