OBJECTIVE: To analyse the performance of the quality of prostate cancer (CaP) care over a 5-year period with reference to three quality indicators (QIs) reported by the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria (PCOR-Vic):QI-1: Alignment with the modified Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol guideline;QI-2: Timeliness of CaP care for men with high risk and locally advanced disease;QI-3: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) for organ-confined pathological T2 disease. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013, 4708 men diagnosed with CaP who met the QI-1, QI-2 or QI-3 inclusion criteria were recruited from Victorian hospitals.Outcome measures and statistical analysis: Trend analysis was conducted to monitor performance according to QI-1, QI-2 and QI-3. We used the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to account for any inherent autocorrelation in the data when analysing the monthly incidence of each indicator. Differences in the annual figures for the indicators across years were also analysed by aggregating data by year and applying the ARIMA model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was a downward trend over the 5 years in the percentage of men with low risk disease who underwent active treatment (45% to 34%; P = 0.024), an upward trend in the percentage of those with high risk and locally advanced disease who received active treatment within 12 months of diagnosis (88% to 93%; P = 0.181), and a decline in PSM rate in men with pathological T2 disease after radical prostatectomy (21% to 12%; P = 0.036). Limitations of the study include the fact that the improvement in the QIs was detected using PCOR-Vic as a single population, but there may be institutional variations in quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2009-2013, the performance of the Victorian health system improved according to the three processes of care indicators reported by the PCOR-Vic.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the performance of the quality of prostate cancer (CaP) care over a 5-year period with reference to three quality indicators (QIs) reported by the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria (PCOR-Vic):QI-1: Alignment with the modified Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol guideline;QI-2: Timeliness of CaP care for men with high risk and locally advanced disease;QI-3: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) for organ-confined pathological T2 disease. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013, 4708 men diagnosed with CaP who met the QI-1, QI-2 or QI-3 inclusion criteria were recruited from Victorian hospitals.Outcome measures and statistical analysis: Trend analysis was conducted to monitor performance according to QI-1, QI-2 and QI-3. We used the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to account for any inherent autocorrelation in the data when analysing the monthly incidence of each indicator. Differences in the annual figures for the indicators across years were also analysed by aggregating data by year and applying the ARIMA model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was a downward trend over the 5 years in the percentage of men with low risk disease who underwent active treatment (45% to 34%; P = 0.024), an upward trend in the percentage of those with high risk and locally advanced disease who received active treatment within 12 months of diagnosis (88% to 93%; P = 0.181), and a decline in PSM rate in men with pathological T2 disease after radical prostatectomy (21% to 12%; P = 0.036). Limitations of the study include the fact that the improvement in the QIs was detected using PCOR-Vic as a single population, but there may be institutional variations in quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Over 2009-2013, the performance of the Victorian health system improved according to the three processes of care indicators reported by the PCOR-Vic.
Authors: Narhari Timilshina; Antonio Finelli; George Tomlinson; Anna Gagliardi; Beate Sander; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Sue M Evans; Jeremy L Millar; Caroline M Moore; John D Lewis; Hartwig Huland; Fanny Sampurno; Sarah E Connor; Paul Villanti; Mark S Litwin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Husna Begum; Swarna Vishwanath; Michelle Merenda; Mark Tacey; Nicola Dean; Elisabeth Elder; Marc Mureau; Ron Bezic; Pamela Carter; Rodney D Cooter; Anand Deva; Arul Earnest; Michael Higgs; Howard Klein; Mark Magnusson; Colin Moore; Hinne Rakhorst; Christobel Saunders; Birgit Stark; Ingrid Hopper Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-08-19
Authors: Michael Rechtman; Andrew Forbes; Jeremy L Millar; Melanie Evans; Lachlan Dodds; Declan G Murphy; Sue M Evans Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 14.432