OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationships among implementing decision aids (DAs) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PRCA), and treatment rates and costs. STUDY DESIGN: A pre-post observational evaluation of a quality improvement initiative in a healthcare system in Washington state. METHODS: Men with BPH seen in urology clinics and all men diagnosed with localized PRCA were identified for an intervention period, in which urologists were instructed to order a DA for every patient with those conditions, and a historical control period. Outcomes were 6-month rates of surgery for BPH, any active treatment (hormone therapy, radiation, or surgery) for PRCA, and total healthcare costs. Results During the intervention, DAs were delivered to 22% of men with recent BPH drug treatment, 24% of men with untreated BPH, and 56% of men with PRCA. DA implementation was associated with a 32% lower rate of surgery among men with treated BPH (rate ratio [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94) and a nonsignificant 22% lower rate of surgery among men with previously untreated BPH (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.22). For PRCA, DA implementation was associated with a 27% lower rate of active treatment (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93). We found no significant associations between DA implementation and costs of care for either condition. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing patient DAs was associated with lower rates of elective surgery for previously treated BPH and active treatment for localized PRCA; however, implementation of these DAs was not associated with lower costs of care.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationships among implementing decision aids (DAs) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PRCA), and treatment rates and costs. STUDY DESIGN: A pre-post observational evaluation of a quality improvement initiative in a healthcare system in Washington state. METHODS:Men with BPH seen in urology clinics and all men diagnosed with localized PRCA were identified for an intervention period, in which urologists were instructed to order a DA for every patient with those conditions, and a historical control period. Outcomes were 6-month rates of surgery for BPH, any active treatment (hormone therapy, radiation, or surgery) for PRCA, and total healthcare costs. Results During the intervention, DAs were delivered to 22% of men with recent BPH drug treatment, 24% of men with untreated BPH, and 56% of men with PRCA. DA implementation was associated with a 32% lower rate of surgery among men with treated BPH (rate ratio [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94) and a nonsignificant 22% lower rate of surgery among men with previously untreated BPH (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.22). For PRCA, DA implementation was associated with a 27% lower rate of active treatment (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93). We found no significant associations between DA implementation and costs of care for either condition. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing patient DAs was associated with lower rates of elective surgery for previously treated BPH and active treatment for localized PRCA; however, implementation of these DAs was not associated with lower costs of care.