PURPOSE: We describe the establishment of the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative including our pilot project to improve radiographic staging for men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative comprises more than 60 urologists from 3 group practices. From May through September 2009 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative surgeons collected a uniform set of data (eg prostate specific antigen, clinical stage) for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. After categorizing the cancer of each patient as low, intermediate or high risk, we analyzed baseline use of staging studies across prostate cancer risk strata and Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practice locations. RESULTS: Of 215 men with prostate cancer 34%, 42% and 24% had low, intermediate and high risk cancer, respectively. Overall 44% and 43% of patients underwent staging with a bone scan or computerized tomography, respectively, and only 9% and 7% of these studies, respectively, were positive for metastases. Use of staging studies increased across risk strata as bone scans or computerized tomography were performed in 17% and 18%, 41% and 40%, and 88% and 86% of patients, respectively, with low, intermediate and high risk tumors (p<0.01). For men with low risk prostate cancer the use of bone scans and computerized tomography differed significantly across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices (p<0.01) and for this group only 1 bone scan (and no computerized tomography) was positive for metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Use of staging evaluations varies by prostate cancer risk strata and across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices. By feeding these data back to surgeons we may be able to improve practice patterns and avoid unnecessary studies in low risk patients. Attainment of this goal would establish the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative as a viable infrastructure for collaborative quality improvement in urology.
PURPOSE: We describe the establishment of the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative including our pilot project to improve radiographic staging for men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative comprises more than 60 urologists from 3 group practices. From May through September 2009 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative surgeons collected a uniform set of data (eg prostate specific antigen, clinical stage) for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. After categorizing the cancer of each patient as low, intermediate or high risk, we analyzed baseline use of staging studies across prostate cancer risk strata and Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practice locations. RESULTS: Of 215 men with prostate cancer 34%, 42% and 24% had low, intermediate and high risk cancer, respectively. Overall 44% and 43% of patients underwent staging with a bone scan or computerized tomography, respectively, and only 9% and 7% of these studies, respectively, were positive for metastases. Use of staging studies increased across risk strata as bone scans or computerized tomography were performed in 17% and 18%, 41% and 40%, and 88% and 86% of patients, respectively, with low, intermediate and high risk tumors (p<0.01). For men with low risk prostate cancer the use of bone scans and computerized tomography differed significantly across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices (p<0.01) and for this group only 1 bone scan (and no computerized tomography) was positive for metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Use of staging evaluations varies by prostate cancer risk strata and across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices. By feeding these data back to surgeons we may be able to improve practice patterns and avoid unnecessary studies in low risk patients. Attainment of this goal would establish the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative as a viable infrastructure for collaborative quality improvement in urology.
Authors: Peter A Elliott; George A Abdelsayed; Patrick S Kilday; Brian J Kim; Jeff M Slezak; Gary W Chien Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Gregory E Tasian; Jose E Pulido; Ron Keren; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Jan M Hanley; Rodger Madison; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Kendra Schwartz; Joanne S Colt; Julie Ruterbusch; W Marston Linehan; Wong-Ho Chow; David C Miller Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-02-16 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Elaine Y C Hu; Dawn Walter; R Scott Braithwaite; Scott Sherman; Heather T Gold; Xiao-Hua Andrew Zhou; Cary P Gross; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Karim Chamie; Eric Ballon-Landa; Timothy J Daskivich; Jeffrey C Bassett; Julie Lai; Jan M Hanley; Badrinath R Konety; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Hung-Jui Tan; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Angela B Smith; Stephanie B Wheeler; William R Carpenter; Matthew E Nielsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karim Chamie; Mark S Litwin; Jeffrey C Bassett; Timothy J Daskivich; Julie Lai; Jan M Hanley; Badrinath R Konety; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Stephen M Dailey; Heather S Crossley; Heidi Lentz; Christopher T Tallman; Chang He; Alon Z Weizer Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Erica Sedlander; R Scott Braithwaite; Scott E Sherman; Steven Zeliadt; Cary P Gross; Caitlin Curnyn; Michele Shedlin Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 7.327