Deborah R Kaye1, John Syrjamaki2, Chad Ellimoottil2, Edward W Schervish3, M Hugh Solomon4, Susan Linsell5, James E Montie5, David C Miller6, James M Dupree6. 1. Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Value Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: kayed@med.umich.edu. 2. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Value Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Institute of Urology, Detroit, MI. 4. Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 6. Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI; Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Value Collaborative, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the statistical association between routine home health use after prostatectomy, short-term surgical outcomes, and payments. METHODS: We identified all men who underwent a robotic radical prostatectomy from April 1, 2014, to October 31, 2015, in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) with insurance from Medicare or a large commercial payer. We calculated rates of "routine" home care use after prostatectomy by urology practice. We defined "routine" home care as home care initiated within 4 days of discharge among patients discharged without a pelvic drain. We then compared emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, prolonged catheter use, catheter reinsertion rates, and 90-day episode payments, in unadjusted and using a propensity-adjusted analysis, for those who did and did not receive home care. RESULTS: We identified 647 patients, of whom 13% received routine home health care. At the practice level, the use of routine home care after prostatectomy varied from 0% to 53% (P = .05) (mean: 3.6%, median: 0%). Unadjusted, patients with routine home care had increased ED visits within 16 days (15.5% vs 6.9%, P <.01), similar rates of catheter duration for >16 days (3.6% vs 3.0%, P = .79) and need for catheter replacement (1.2% vs 2.5%, P = .46), and a trend toward decreased readmissions (0% vs 4.1%, P = .06). Only the increased ED visits remained significant in adjusted analyses (P <.01). Home health had an average payment of $1000 per episode. CONCLUSION: Thirteen percent of patients received routine home health care after prostatectomy, without improved outcomes. These findings suggest that patients do not routinely require home health care to improve short-term outcomes following radical prostatectomy, however, the appropriate use of home health care should be evaluated further.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the statistical association between routine home health use after prostatectomy, short-term surgical outcomes, and payments. METHODS: We identified all men who underwent a robotic radical prostatectomy from April 1, 2014, to October 31, 2015, in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) with insurance from Medicare or a large commercial payer. We calculated rates of "routine" home care use after prostatectomy by urology practice. We defined "routine" home care as home care initiated within 4 days of discharge among patients discharged without a pelvic drain. We then compared emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, prolonged catheter use, catheter reinsertion rates, and 90-day episode payments, in unadjusted and using a propensity-adjusted analysis, for those who did and did not receive home care. RESULTS: We identified 647 patients, of whom 13% received routine home health care. At the practice level, the use of routine home care after prostatectomy varied from 0% to 53% (P = .05) (mean: 3.6%, median: 0%). Unadjusted, patients with routine home care had increased ED visits within 16 days (15.5% vs 6.9%, P <.01), similar rates of catheter duration for >16 days (3.6% vs 3.0%, P = .79) and need for catheter replacement (1.2% vs 2.5%, P = .46), and a trend toward decreased readmissions (0% vs 4.1%, P = .06). Only the increased ED visits remained significant in adjusted analyses (P <.01). Home health had an average payment of $1000 per episode. CONCLUSION: Thirteen percent of patients received routine home health care after prostatectomy, without improved outcomes. These findings suggest that patients do not routinely require home health care to improve short-term outcomes following radical prostatectomy, however, the appropriate use of home health care should be evaluated further.
Authors: Stacie N Myers; Khurshid R Ghani; Rodney L Dunn; Brian R Lane; Edward W Schervish; Yuqing Gao; Susan M Linsell; David C Miller; James E Montie; James M Dupree Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chad Ellimoottil; John D Syrjamaki; Benedict Voit; Vinay Guduguntla; David C Miller; James M Dupree Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Marianne Schmid; H Abraham Chiang; Akshay Sood; Logan Campbell; Felix K-H Chun; Deepansh Dalela; James Okwara; Jesse D Sammon; Adam S Kibel; Mani Menon; Margit Fisch; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Dominic E Sanford; Margaret A Olsen; Kerry M Bommarito; Manish Shah; Ryan C Fields; William G Hawkins; David P Jaques; David C Linehan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Elliot Wakeam; George Molina; Neel Shah; Stuart R Lipsitz; David C Chang; Atul A Gawande; Alex B Haynes Journal: Surgery Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Jean Jacob-Brassard; Mohammed Al-Omran; Konrad Salata; Mohamad A Hussain; Ahmed Kayssi; Graham Roche-Nagle; Charles de Mestral Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Frederik Wessels; Maximilian Lenhart; Manuel Neuberger; Julia Mühlbauer; Johannes Huber; Johannes Breyer; Philipp Nuhn; Maurice S Michel; Julian Koenig; Maximilian C Kriegmair Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 4.226