Comparison of Physician-Documented Versus Patient-Reported Collection of Comorbidities Among Patients With Prostate Cancer Upon First Visit to the Urology Clinic.

PURPOSE: To determine whether patient-reported collection of comorbidities online is sufficiently accurate to warrant use as part of a physician-reviewed, baseline medical history.

METHODS

Comorbidities were collected for a sample of 213 new prostate cancer visits to our urology clinic through an online survey (called Baseline Medical History) before the clinical encounter. The frequency distributions of comorbidities as reported by patients before physician review were compared with those documented by physicians for a sample of 298 consecutive patients presenting to the same urology clinic before the survey went live.

RESULTS

The overall frequency distribution of comorbidities and life expectancy estimates were similar between the two groups. A few comorbidity categories were reported with higher frequency in the patient-reported group compared with the physician-documented group, including neurologic comorbidities (7.5% v 1.7%; difference 6%; 95% CI, 2.0% to 10%; P = .001) and back pain (24% v 13%; difference 12%; 95% CI, 4.8% to 19%; P = .001). A similar trend was seen for vascular conditions, although the difference did not meet conventional levels of statistical significance. Genitourinary comorbidities, including problems with urination and erectile dysfunction, were better captured by the physician-reported group compared with the patient-reported group (68% v 53%; difference 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 24%; P = .001), as were other musculoskeletal comorbidities (8.7% v 1.9%; difference 7%; 95% CI, 3.2% to 11%; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients completing a medical history, at their own pace and in the comfort of their own home, provide relatively accurate and complete information, even before physician review. Patient reporting of comorbidities thus seems to be a reliable starting point for the documentation of the medical history in the clinic.