Abstract:Background Many clinical trials use systematic methodology to monitor adverse events (AE) and determine grade (severity), expectedness, and relatedness to treatments as determined by clinicians. However, patient perspective in the process remains lacking. Objectives To compare clinician versus patient grading of AE severity in a urogynecologic surgical trial. Secondary objectives were to estimate the association between patient grading of AEs with decision-making and quality of life outcomes and to determine if patient perspective changes over time. Study Design This was a planned supplementary study, " P atient- P erspectives in A dverse Event R eporting" (PPAR), to a randomized trial comparing 3 surgical approaches to vaginal apical prolapse. In the parent trial, AEs experienced by patients were collected per a standardized protocol every 6 months where clinicians graded AE severity (mild, moderate, severe/life threatening). In this sub-study, we obtained additional longitudinal patient perspectives for 19 predetermined "PPAR AEs". Patients provided their own severity grading (mild, moderate, severe/very severe/ life threatening) at initial assessment and at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. Clinicians and patients were masked to each other's reporting. The primary outcome was the interrater agreement (kappa statistic, κ) for AE severity between the initial clinician and patient assessment, combining patient grades of mild and moderate. Association between AE severity and the Decision-Regret Scale (DRS), Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SDS), the Short-Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12), and Patient-Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores were assessed utilizing Spearman's correlation coefficient (ρ) for continuous scales, Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test for PGI-I, and T-tests or chi-squared tests comparing assessments of severe vs other grades. To describe patient perspective changes over time, the intra-observer agreement was estimated for AE severity grade over time using weighted kappa-coefficients. Results Of 360 patients randomized, 219 (61%) experienced a total of 527 PPAR AEs (91% moderate and 9% severe/life threatening by clinician grading). Mean patient age was 67 years, 87% were White, and 12% Hispanic. Of patients reporting any PPAR event, the most common were urinary tract infection (61%), de novo urgency urinary incontinence (35%), stress urinary incontinence (22%), and fecal incontinence (13%). Overall agreement between clinician and participant grading of severity was poor (κ=0.24 (95%CI 0.14, 0.34). Of 414 AEs clinicians graded as moderate, patients graded 120 (29%) mild, and 80 (19%) severe. Of 39 AEs graded severe by clinicians, patients graded 15 (38%) mild or moderate. Initial patient grading of the most severe reported AE was mildly correlated with worse DRS (ρ=0.2, p=0.01), SF-12 (ρ=-0.24, p<0.01) and PGI-I (p<0.01). There was no association between AE severity and SDS. Patients with an initial grading of "severe" had more regret, lower quality of life, and poorer global impressions of health than those whose worst severity grade was mild (p<0.05). Agreement between the patients' initial severity and later timepoints was fair at 12 months (κ=0.48 (95% CI 0.39, 0.58)) and 36 months (κ=0.45 (95% CI 0.37, 0.53)). Conclusions Clinician and patient perceptions of AE severity are discordant. Worse severity from the patient perspective was associated with patient-centered outcomes. Including the patient perspective provides additional information for evaluating surgical procedures.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Severe Abdominal Trauma: A Secondary Analysis of the Damage Control Laparotomy Trial

Trauma and nontrauma damage-control laparotomy: The difference is delirium (data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial)

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in Emergency General Surgery

Evaluating patient factors, operative management and postoperative outcomes in trauma laparotomy patients worldwide: a protocol for a global observational multicentre trauma study

SP9.1.7 Emergency Laparotomy for Trauma in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a Prospective Multicentre Study

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol versus conventional care in emergency abdominal trauma surgery: a prospective, randomised, controlled study

Evaluating Mortality Outcomes, Transfusion Characteristics, and Risk Factors Associated With Cirrhotic Trauma Patients Undergoing Emergency Laparotomy Versus Non-Operative Management: A National Analysis

To the point: Utility of laparoscopy for operative management of stabbing abdominal trauma

Implementation of modified enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) following surgery for abdominal trauma; Assessment of feasibility and outcomes: A randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Management of colonic injuries in the setting of damage-control laparotomy: one shot to get it right

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Abdominal Trauma: A Case-Matched Study

Applying enhanced recovery principles to emergency laparotomy in penetrating abdominal trauma: a case-matched study

Treatments and other prognostic factors in the management of the open abdomen: A systematic review

Prospective longitudinal cohort study of patient recovery after major gastrointestinal surgery: is there a difference between minimally invasive and open approaches?

Long Term Outcome After Open Abdomen Treatment: Function and Quality of Life

Patient perspectives in adverse event reporting after vaginal apical prolapse surgery

Timing of Re-Laparotomy in Blunt Trauma Patients With Damage-Control Laparotomy

Recovery of health-related quality of life after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy

Associations Between Patient Experience and Clinical Outcomes at a Level I Trauma Center: a Cross-Sectional Survey-Based Study

Not just for trauma patients: damage control laparotomy in pancreatic surgery

Long-Term Patient-Reported Functional Outcome of Polytraumatized Patients With Operatively Treated Pelvic Fractures