Florian R Schroeck1, Samuel R Kaufman2, Bruce L Jacobs3, Ted A Skolarus4, David C Miller1, Jeffrey S Montgomery5, Alon Z Weizer5, Brent K Hollenbeck6. 1. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Center for Clinical Management Research, Health Services Research and Development Service, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: bhollen@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the relationship between health care system performance on nationally endorsed prostate cancer quality of care measures and prostate cancer treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 48,050 men from SEER-Medicare linked data diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009, and followed through 2010. Based on a composite quality measure we categorized the health care systems in which these men were treated into 1-star (bottom 20%), 2-star (middle 60%) and 3-star (top 20%) systems. We then examined the association of health care system level quality of care with outcomes using multivariable logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent prostatectomy in 3-star vs 1-star health care systems were at lower risk for perioperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.00). However, they were more likely to undergo a procedure addressing treatment related morbidity, eg for sexual morbidity (11.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.043). In patients who received radiotherapy star ranking was not associated with treatment related morbidity. In all patients star ranking was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.15) or secondary cancer therapy (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: We found no consistent association between health care system quality and outcomes, which questions how meaningful these measures ultimately are for patients. Thus, future studies should focus on developing more discriminative quality measures.
PURPOSE: We assessed the relationship between health care system performance on nationally endorsed prostate cancer quality of care measures and prostate cancer treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 48,050 men from SEER-Medicare linked data diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009, and followed through 2010. Based on a composite quality measure we categorized the health care systems in which these men were treated into 1-star (bottom 20%), 2-star (middle 60%) and 3-star (top 20%) systems. We then examined the association of health care system level quality of care with outcomes using multivariable logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS:Patients who underwent prostatectomy in 3-star vs 1-star health care systems were at lower risk for perioperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.00). However, they were more likely to undergo a procedure addressing treatment related morbidity, eg for sexual morbidity (11.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.043). In patients who received radiotherapy star ranking was not associated with treatment related morbidity. In all patients star ranking was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.15) or secondary cancer therapy (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: We found no consistent association between health care system quality and outcomes, which questions how meaningful these measures ultimately are for patients. Thus, future studies should focus on developing more discriminative quality measures.
Authors: E P McCarthy; L I Iezzoni; R B Davis; R H Palmer; M Cahalane; M B Hamel; K Mukamal; R S Phillips; D T Davies Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Jonathan F Finks; Amanda O'Reilly; Mary Oerline; Arthur M Carlin; Andre R Nunn; Justin Dimick; Mousumi Banerjee; Nancy J O Birkmeyer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Jean M Moran; Melanie Dempsey; Avraham Eisbruch; Benedick A Fraass; James M Galvin; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; John M Hollingsworth; Vahakn B Shahinian; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Yun Zhang; Ted A Skolarus; John T Wei; James E Montie; David C Miller; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Davide Gori; Rajendra Dulal; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Maria P Fantini; Kathryn M McDonald; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-09-18
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
Authors: Parth K Modi; Phyllis Yan; Brent K Hollenbeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Tudor Borza; Ted A Skolarus; Florian R Schroeck; Andrew M Ryan; Vahakn B Shahinian; Lindsey A Herrel Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2020-09-01