Concordance between patient-reported and physician-reported sexual function after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Accurately tracking health-related quality-of-life after radical prostatectomy is critical to counseling patients and improving technique. Physicians consistently overestimate functional recovery. We measured concordance between surgeon-assessed and patient-reported outcomes and evaluated a novel method to provide feedback to surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men treated with radical prostatectomy self-completed the International Index of Erectile Function-6 questionnaire at each postoperative visit. Separately, physicians graded sexual function on a 5-point scale. International Index of Erectile Function -6 score<22 and grade ≥3 defined patient-reported and physician-assessed erectile dysfunction (ED), respectively. Feedback on concordance was given to physicians starting in May 2013 with the implementation of the Amplio feedback system. Chi-square tests were used to assess agreement proportions and linear regression to evaluate changes in agreement after implementation.

RESULTS: From 2009 to 2015, 3,053 men completed at least 1 postprostatectomy questionnaire and had a concurrent independent physician-reported outcome. Prior to implementation of feedback in 2013, patients and physicians were consistent as to ED 83% of the time; in 10% of cases, physicians overestimated function; in 7% of cases, physicians, but not patients reported ED. Agreement increased after implementation of feedback but this was not statistically significant, likely owing to a ceiling effect. Supporting this hypothesis, increase in agreement postfeedback was greater during late follow-up (≥12mo), where baseline agreement was lower compared to earlier follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: Agreement was higher than expected at baseline; implementation of feedback regarding discrepancies between patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes did not further improve agreement significantly. Our observed high rate of agreement may be partly attributed to our institutional practice of systematically capturing patient-reported outcomes as part of normal clinical care.