Ryan Kendrick Flannigan1, Geoffrey T Gotto2, Bryan Donnelly2, Kevin V Carlson2. 1. Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; 2. Southern Alberta Institute of Urology and The Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the current study was to determine the impact of a standardized follow-up program on the morbidity and rates of hospital visits following radical prostatectomy (RP) in a tertiary, non-teaching urologic centre. METHODS: Patients who underwent a RP in 2008 were retrospectively evaluated in this study. Postoperative morbidity for the entire cohort was assessed using the Modified Clavien Scale (MCS). Those patients readmitted to hospital or who visited an urban or rural emergency department (ED) within 90 days of surgery were further evaluated to determine the reason for readmission. RESULTS: At our centre, 321 patients underwent RP in 2008 by 11 surgeons. Of the 321 patients, 77 (24.0%) visited an ED within 90 days, and 14 were readmitted to hospital, with an additional patient readmitted directly (with a total 15 readmissions, 4.7% overall). No patients died within the study period. In 2009 we launched a pilot study wherein 115 RP patients received scheduled and on-demand follow-up care by a dedicated nurse between May and November. We found that 90-day readmission rates among this cohort dropped to 5% and 2.6% for ED visits and hospital readmission, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At our tertiary non-teaching centre, a significant number of patients presented back to hospital within 90 days following RP. Most of these patients (80.8%) were managed entirely through an outpatient ED, and many visits were for routine postoperative care. Only 18.2% (4.7% of the 321 prostatectomy patients) were readmitted to hospital. These data point to a need for enhanced postoperative support of patients to reduce costly and often unnecessary visits to acute care EDs. This conclusion is supported by our early experience. Limitations include retrospective design, and variability in practice of surgeons in this study.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the current study was to determine the impact of a standardized follow-up program on the morbidity and rates of hospital visits following radical prostatectomy (RP) in a tertiary, non-teaching urologic centre. METHODS:Patients who underwent a RP in 2008 were retrospectively evaluated in this study. Postoperative morbidity for the entire cohort was assessed using the Modified Clavien Scale (MCS). Those patients readmitted to hospital or who visited an urban or rural emergency department (ED) within 90 days of surgery were further evaluated to determine the reason for readmission. RESULTS: At our centre, 321 patients underwent RP in 2008 by 11 surgeons. Of the 321 patients, 77 (24.0%) visited an ED within 90 days, and 14 were readmitted to hospital, with an additional patient readmitted directly (with a total 15 readmissions, 4.7% overall). No patients died within the study period. In 2009 we launched a pilot study wherein 115 RP patients received scheduled and on-demand follow-up care by a dedicated nurse between May and November. We found that 90-day readmission rates among this cohort dropped to 5% and 2.6% for ED visits and hospital readmission, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At our tertiary non-teaching centre, a significant number of patients presented back to hospital within 90 days following RP. Most of these patients (80.8%) were managed entirely through an outpatient ED, and many visits were for routine postoperative care. Only 18.2% (4.7% of the 321 prostatectomy patients) were readmitted to hospital. These data point to a need for enhanced postoperative support of patients to reduce costly and often unnecessary visits to acute care EDs. This conclusion is supported by our early experience. Limitations include retrospective design, and variability in practice of surgeons in this study.
Authors: Shabbir M H Alibhai; Marc Leach; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn; Neil Fleshner; Eric Holowaty; Gary Naglie Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J L Stanford; Z Feng; A S Hamilton; F D Gilliland; R A Stephenson; J W Eley; P C Albertsen; L C Harlan; A L Potosky Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Farhang Rabbani; Luis Herran Yunis; Rodrigo Pinochet; Lucas Nogueira; Kinjal C Vora; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau; Vincent Laudone; Peter T Scardino; Karim Touijer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Deborah R Kaye; John Syrjamaki; Chad Ellimoottil; Edward W Schervish; M Hugh Solomon; Susan Linsell; James E Montie; David C Miller; James M Dupree Journal: Urology Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Stephanie T Lumpkin; Paula D Strassle; Jason P Fine; Timothy S Carey; Karyn B Stitzenberg Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.412