OBJECTIVES: To improve benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) care, the American Urological Association created the best practice guidelines for BPH management. We evaluated the trends in use of BPH-related evaluative tests and the extent to which urologists comply with the guidelines for these evaluative tests. METHODS: From a 5% random sample of Medicare claims from 1999 to 2007, we created a cohort of 10,248 patients with new visits for BPH to 748 urologists. The trends in use of BPH-related testing were determined. After classifying urologists by compliance with the best practice guidelines, the models were fit to determine the differences in the use of BPH-related testing among urologists. Additional models were used to define the extent to which individual BPH-related tests influenced guideline compliance. RESULTS: The use of most BPH testing increased with time (P<.001) except for prostate-specific antigen (declined; P<.001) and ultrasonography (P=.416). Northeastern and Midwestern urologists were more likely to be in the lowest compliance group compared with Southern and Western urologists (29%, 27%, 13%, and 19%, respectively; P=.01). The testing associated with high guideline compliance included urinalysis and prostate-specific antigen measurement (P<.01 for both). Prostate ultrasonography (P=.03), cystoscopy (P<.01), uroflow (P<.01), and postvoid residual urine volume determination (P=.02) were associated with low guideline compliance. Urodynamics, postvoid residual urine volume, cytology, serum creatinine, and upper tract imaging were not strongly associated with guideline compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the American Urological Association guidelines for BPH care, wide variations in the evaluation and treatment were seen. Improving guideline adherence and reducing variation could improve BPH care quality.
OBJECTIVES: To improve benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) care, the American Urological Association created the best practice guidelines for BPH management. We evaluated the trends in use of BPH-related evaluative tests and the extent to which urologists comply with the guidelines for these evaluative tests. METHODS: From a 5% random sample of Medicare claims from 1999 to 2007, we created a cohort of 10,248 patients with new visits for BPH to 748 urologists. The trends in use of BPH-related testing were determined. After classifying urologists by compliance with the best practice guidelines, the models were fit to determine the differences in the use of BPH-related testing among urologists. Additional models were used to define the extent to which individual BPH-related tests influenced guideline compliance. RESULTS: The use of most BPH testing increased with time (P<.001) except for prostate-specific antigen (declined; P<.001) and ultrasonography (P=.416). Northeastern and Midwestern urologists were more likely to be in the lowest compliance group compared with Southern and Western urologists (29%, 27%, 13%, and 19%, respectively; P=.01). The testing associated with high guideline compliance included urinalysis and prostate-specific antigen measurement (P<.01 for both). Prostate ultrasonography (P=.03), cystoscopy (P<.01), uroflow (P<.01), and postvoid residual urine volume determination (P=.02) were associated with low guideline compliance. Urodynamics, postvoid residual urine volume, cytology, serum creatinine, and upper tract imaging were not strongly associated with guideline compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the American Urological Association guidelines for BPH care, wide variations in the evaluation and treatment were seen. Improving guideline adherence and reducing variation could improve BPH care quality.
Authors: Grace A Lin; Rita F Redberg; H Vernon Anderson; Richard E Shaw; Sarah Milford-Beland; Eric D Peterson; Sunil V Rao; Rachel M Werner; R Adams Dudley Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Adam S Bellinger; Sean P Elliott; Liu Yang; John T Wei; Christopher S Saigal; Alexandria Smith; Timothy J Wilt; Seth A Strope Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Seth A Strope; John T Wei; Alexandria Smith; Timothy J Wilt; Christopher S Saigal; Sean P Elliott Journal: Urology Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Carrie H Colla; Nancy E Morden; Thomas D Sequist; William L Schpero; Meredith B Rosenthal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lennert Eismann; Alexander Kretschmer; Markus J Bader; Sabine Kess; Christian G Stief; Frank Strittmatter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Maria M Wertli; Brigitta Zumbrunn; Pascal Weber; Alan G Haynes; Radoslaw Panczak; Arnaud Chiolero; Nicolas Rodondi; Drahomir Aujesky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juhyun Park; Young Ju Lee; Jeong Woo Lee; Tag Keun Yoo; Jae Il Chung; Seok-Joong Yun; Jun Hyuk Hong; Seong Il Seo; Sung Yong Cho; Hwancheol Son Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2015-03-03