PURPOSE: We describe findings from a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative project focused on improving the use of radiographic staging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2009 through September 2010 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative surgeons collected uniform data for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. During this period we implemented 3 phases of data collection. Unlike the baseline phase, the second and third rounds were preceded by collaborative quality improvement interventions, including comparative performance feedback, and review and dissemination of clinical guidelines. We evaluated the use of bone scans and computerized tomography across prostate cancer risk strata, Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practice locations, and before and after quality improvement interventions. RESULTS: We collected data for 858 men with prostate cancer. Based on the D'Amico classification 44%, 39% and 17% of the men had low, intermediate and high risk cancer, respectively. Overall 25% and 22% of patients underwent staging with a bone scan or computerized tomography, respectively, ordered by a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative urologist. Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices differed significantly in their baseline use of bone scans and computerized tomography for men with low and intermediate risk cancer (p<0.01). Compared with baseline practice patterns (31% bone scans, 28% computerized tomography), urologists in Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices ordered fewer bone and computerized tomography scans in post-intervention phases 2 (23%, 21%) and 3 (16%, 13%) of data collection (p<0.01), including a significant reduction in the use of these studies in patients with low and intermediate risk cancer (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Following collaborative feedback on baseline use and review of clinical guidelines, urologists in Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices dramatically reduced variations in practice patterns and improved adherence with recommended staging practices.
PURPOSE: We describe findings from a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative project focused on improving the use of radiographic staging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2009 through September 2010 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative surgeons collected uniform data for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. During this period we implemented 3 phases of data collection. Unlike the baseline phase, the second and third rounds were preceded by collaborative quality improvement interventions, including comparative performance feedback, and review and dissemination of clinical guidelines. We evaluated the use of bone scans and computerized tomography across prostate cancer risk strata, Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practice locations, and before and after quality improvement interventions. RESULTS: We collected data for 858 men with prostate cancer. Based on the D'Amico classification 44%, 39% and 17% of the men had low, intermediate and high risk cancer, respectively. Overall 25% and 22% of patients underwent staging with a bone scan or computerized tomography, respectively, ordered by a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative urologist. Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices differed significantly in their baseline use of bone scans and computerized tomography for men with low and intermediate risk cancer (p<0.01). Compared with baseline practice patterns (31% bone scans, 28% computerized tomography), urologists in Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices ordered fewer bone and computerized tomography scans in post-intervention phases 2 (23%, 21%) and 3 (16%, 13%) of data collection (p<0.01), including a significant reduction in the use of these studies in patients with low and intermediate risk cancer (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Following collaborative feedback on baseline use and review of clinical guidelines, urologists in Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices dramatically reduced variations in practice patterns and improved adherence with recommended staging practices.
Authors: Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Anders Bjartell; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jim C Hu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Jeffrey C Bassett; JoAnn Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Matthew Resnick; Chaochen You; Shenghua Ni; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: David F Friedlander; Matthew J Resnick; Chaochen You; Jeffrey Bassett; Vidhush Yarlagadda; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Am J Med Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 4.965
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: S P Porten; A Smith; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; P R Carroll; M R Cooperberg Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 5.554