Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches

Abstract Introduction The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identif...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urologic oncology 2014-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1091-1094
Hauptverfasser: Mossanen, Matthew, M.D, Calvert, Joshua K., B.S., M.P.H, Wright, Jonathan L., M.D., M.S, True, Lawrence D., M.D, Lin, Daniel W., M.D, Gore, John L., M.D., M.S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Introduction The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identify sources of confusion that could be addressed through modified patient-centered pathology reports. Methods Pathology reports from 5 cases of each of the following procedures were analyzed: partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (PNBx), radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, radical orchiectomy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Reports were edited for grammar and syntax, and the Flesch-Kincaid readability software calculated the reading level. Modifications were performed to identify sources of obstruction to readability. We compared modified and base reports using independent samples t tests. Results Bladder cancer pathology had the highest readability index; radical prostatectomy and PNBx pathology reports had the lowest average readability indices. Modified reports that both omitted gross pathologic and immunohistochemistry content and also replaced oncologic and histology terms with lay terminology had significantly lower reading levels than base reports ( P
ISSN:1078-1439
1873-2496
DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011