4.6 Article

Establishment of a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 184, Issue 6, Pages 2485-2490

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.015

Keywords

urology; prostatic neoplasms; peer review, health care; health care evaluation mechanisms

Funding

  1. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. American Medical Systems
  4. Indevus Pharmaceuticals
  5. Astellas Pharma Inc.
  6. University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center
  7. Cook Biotech
  8. Medtronic
  9. Diagnostic ID
  10. Lilly
  11. Pfizer
  12. Wilex

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We describe the establishment of the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative including our pilot project to improve radiographic staging for men with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: The Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative comprises more than 60 urologists from 3 group practices. From May through September 2009 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative surgeons collected a uniform set of data (eg prostate specific antigen, clinical stage) for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. After categorizing the cancer of each patient as low, intermediate or high risk, we analyzed baseline use of staging studies across prostate cancer risk strata and Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practice locations. Results: Of 215 men with prostate cancer 34%, 42% and 24% had low, intermediate and high risk cancer, respectively. Overall 44% and 43% of patients underwent staging with a bone scan or computerized tomography, respectively, and only 9% and 7% of these studies, respectively, were positive for metastases. Use of staging studies increased across risk strata as bone scans or computerized tomography were performed in 17% and 18%, 41% and 40%, and 88% and 86% of patients, respectively, with low, intermediate and high risk tumors (p <0.01). For men with low risk prostate cancer the use of bone scans and computerized tomography differed significantly across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices (p <0.01) and for this group only 1 bone scan (and no computerized tomography) was positive for metastases. Conclusions: Use of staging evaluations varies by prostate cancer risk strata and across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices. By feeding these data back to surgeons we may be able to improve practice patterns and avoid unnecessary studies in low risk patients. Attainment of this goal would establish the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative as a viable infrastructure for collaborative quality improvement in urology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available