Literature DB >> 23714522

Understanding variation in the quality of the surgical treatment of prostate cancer.

Florian R Schroeck1, Bruce L Jacobs, Brent K Hollenbeck.   

Abstract

More than 80% of men with prostate cancer undergo active treatment, which can be associated with significant morbidity. Outcomes of surgical treatment vary widely depending on who treated the patient and where the patient was treated, implying that there is room for improvement. Factors influencing outcomes include patient characteristics as well as some measure of procedure volume. Although relationships between volume and outcomes for prostatectomy can most likely be explained by differences between surgeons (e.g., experience, technical skill), the hospital environment (e.g., team communication, safety culture) has the potential to either amplify or dampen the effects. Although most patient factors are immutable, these other aspects of surgical care and the delivery environment provide opportunities for quality improvement. Collaborative quality improvement initiatives may prove to be an important vehicle for achieving better prostate cancer care. These grass roots organizations, driven largely by urologists dedicated to providing prostate cancer care, have had initial successes in improving some aspects of quality in prostate cancer care, including reducing unwarranted use of imaging and perioperative morbidity. However, much of the variation in functional outcomes after prostate cancer surgery arises from differences in technical skill. Evaluating and improving intraoperative surgeon performance will inevitably be challenging, as they require acquisition and interpretation of data collected in the operating room. To this end, several methods have been described to objectively assess what happens in the operating room.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23714522      PMCID: PMC7010404          DOI: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2013.33.278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book        ISSN: 1548-8748


  28 in total

1.  Population-based study of relationships between hospital volume of prostatectomies, patient outcomes, and length of hospital stay.

Authors:  S L Yao; G Lu-Yao
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-11-17       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Assessment of surgical competence.

Authors:  A Darzi; S Mackay
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-12

3.  Results of a cooperative educational program to improve prostate pathology reports among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Pascal James Imperato; Jerry Waisman; Marcia Wallen; Veronica Pryor; Mary Rojas; Kathleen Giardelli; Maryanne Daley
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2002-02

4.  Health care reform and its implications for the academic cancer center.

Authors:  David C Hohn
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Measure, learn, and improve: physicians' involvement in quality improvement.

Authors:  Anne-Marie J Audet; Michelle M Doty; Jamil Shamasdin; Stephen C Schoenbaum
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  How a regional collaborative of hospitals and physicians in Michigan cut costs and improved the quality of care.

Authors:  David A Share; Darrell A Campbell; Nancy Birkmeyer; Richard L Prager; Hitinder S Gurm; Mauro Moscucci; Marianne Udow-Phillips; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Regional collaboration to improve radiographic staging practices among men with early stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  David C Miller; Daniel S Murtagh; Ronald S Suh; Peter M Knapp; Timothy G Schuster; Rodney L Dunn; James E Montie
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-07-23       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  The quality of surgical pathology care for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in the U.S.

Authors:  David C Miller; Benjamin A Spencer; Rajal B Shah; Jamie Ritchey; Andrew K Stewart; E Greer Gay; Rodney L Dunn; John T Wei; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  2 in total

1.  Adherence to performance measures and outcomes among men treated for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; David C Miller; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  The Role of Provider Characteristics in the Selection of Surgery or Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Association With Quality of Care Indicators.

Authors:  Raj Satkunasivam; Mary Lo; Mariana Stern; Inderbir S Gill; Steven Fleming; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Roger T Anderson; Trevor D Thompson; Ann S Hamilton
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.339

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.