Literature DB >> 20961582

Establishment of a urological surgery quality collaborative.

David C Miller1, Daniel S Murtagh, Ronald S Suh, Peter M Knapp, Rodney L Dunn, James E Montie.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20961582     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  13 in total

1.  Healthcare utilization in men with poorer sexual and urinary function recovery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

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

2.  Use of and regional variation in initial CT imaging for kidney stones.

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

3.  Use of nephron-sparing surgery among renal cell carcinoma patients with diabetes and hypertension.

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

4.  Appropriateness of Prostate Cancer Imaging among Veterans in a Delivery System without Incentives for Overutilization.

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

5.  Treatment and survival in patients with recurrent high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

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

6.  Provider-based research networks and diffusion of surgical technologies among patients with early-stage kidney cancer.

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

7.  Recurrence of high-risk bladder cancer: a population-based analysis.

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

8.  Complications associated with single-dose, perioperative mitomycin-C for patients undergoing bladder tumor resection.

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

9.  Prostate cancer imaging trends after a nationwide effort to discourage inappropriate prostate cancer imaging.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Stacy Loeb; David Ulmert; Linda Drevin; Mats Lambe; Pär Stattin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  A qualitative study to understand guideline-discordant use of imaging to stage incident prostate cancer.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.