Literature DB >> 29155190

Use of Routine Home Health Care and Deviations From an Uncomplicated Recovery Pathway After Radical Prostatectomy.

Deborah R Kaye1, John Syrjamaki2, Chad Ellimoottil2, Edward W Schervish3, M Hugh Solomon4, Susan Linsell5, James E Montie5, David C Miller6, James M Dupree6.   

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.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29155190      PMCID: PMC5856596          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  9 in total

1.  Notable Outcomes and Trackable Events after Surgery: Evaluating an Uncomplicated Recovery after Radical Prostatectomy.

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

2.  Identifying Drivers of Episode Cost Variation With Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Lindsey A Herrel; John D Syrjamaki; Susan M Linsell; David C Miller; James M Dupree
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Validation of a claims-based algorithm to characterize episodes of care.

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

4.  Causes of hospital readmissions after urologic cancer surgery.

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

5.  Standardized follow-up program may reduce emergency room and urgent care visits for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Ryan Kendrick Flannigan; Geoffrey T Gotto; Bryan Donnelly; Kevin V Carlson
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Association of discharge home with home health care and 30-day readmission after pancreatectomy.

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

7.  Variation in the cost of 5 common operations in the United States.

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

8.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases.

Authors:  Vipul R Patel; Kenneth J Palmer; Geoff Coughlin; Srinivas Samavedi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Can We Reduce the Utilization of Home-Visiting Nurse Services After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Danielle Y Ponzio; Andrew G Park; Suneel B Bhat; James J Purtill
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 4.757

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  A survey of Canadian surgeons on the indications for home care nursing following vascular surgery.

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

2.  Validation of a German translation of the CARE questionnaire and its implementation as electronic PROM to assess patient-reported postoperative convalescence and recovery after major urological surgery.

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.