Simulating the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery services on travel burden and equity in the English National Health Service: A national population based model for health service re-design

The impact of transportation mode, socioeconomic deprivation and rurality on travel times to radiotherapy and surgical services for patients with prostate cancer: A national population-based evaluation

BACKGROUND

The distances that patients have to travel can influence their access to cancer treatment. We investigated the determinants of travel time, separately for journeys by car and public transport, to centres providing radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using national cancer registry records linked to administrative hospital data, we identified patients who had radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 in the English National Health Service. Estimated travel times from the patients' residential area to the nearest specialist surgical or radiotherapy centre were estimated for journeys by car and by public transport.

RESULTS

We included 13,186 men who had surgery and 26,581 who had radiotherapy. Estimated travel times by public transport (74.4 mins for surgery and 69.4 mins for radiotherapy) were more than twice as long as by car (33.4 mins and 29.1mins, respectively). Patients living in more socially deprived neighbourhoods in rural areas had the longest travel times to the nearest cancer treatment centres by car (62.0 mins for surgery and 52.1 mins for radiotherapy). Conversely patients living in more affluent neighbourhoods in urban conurbations had the shortest (18.7 mins for surgery and 17.9 mins for radiotherapy).

CONCLUSION

Travel times to cancer centres vary widely according to mode of transport, socioeconomic deprivation, and rurality. Policies changing the geographical configuration of cancer services should consider the impact on the expected travel times both by car and by public transport to avoid enhancing existing inequalities in access to treatment and patient outcomes.

Impact of centralization of prostate cancer services on the choice of radical treatment

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery and radiotherapy services on the choice of prostate cancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This national population-based study used linked cancer registry data and administrative hospital-level data for all 16 621 patients who were diagnosed between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiation therapy (RT) in the English National Health Service (NHS). Travel times by car to treating centres were estimated using a geographic information system. We used logistic regression to assess the impact of the relative proximity of alternative treatment options on the type of treatment received, with adjustment for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 78 NHS hospitals that provide RT or RP for prostate cancer, 41% provide both, 36% provide RT and 23% provide RP. Compared to patients who had both treatment options available at their nearest centre where overall 57% of patients received RT and 43% RP, patients were less likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RP only and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RT was >15 min (52% of patients received RT and 48% RP%, odds ratio [OR] 0.70 (0.58-0.85); P < 0.001). Conversely, patients were more likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RT and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RP was >15 min (63% of patients received RT and 37% RP, OR 1.23 (1.08-1.40); P < 0.001). There was a negligible impact on the type of treatment received if centres providing alternative treatment options were ≤15-min travel time from each other.

CONCLUSION

The relative proximity of prostate cancer treatment options to a patient's residence is an independent predictor for the type of radical treatment received. Centralization policies for prostate cancer should not focus on one treatment modality but should consider all treatments to avoid a negative impact on treatment choice.

Influence of travel burden on tumor classification and survival of head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

Cancer patients have to overcome various barriers to obtain diagnostics and treatment at head and neck cancer centers. Travel distance to a specialized hospital may result in psychosocial and financial distress, thus interfering with diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up care. In this study, we have aimed to analyze the association of travel distance with cTNM status, UICC stage at primary diagnosis, and survival outcomes of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

METHODS

We have analyzed data of 1921 consecutive HNC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2019 at the head and neck cancer center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm (CCCU), Germany. Postal code-based travel distance calculation in kilometers, TNM status, and UICC stage were recorded at initial diagnosis. The assembly of travel distance-related groups (short, intermediate, long-distance) has been investigated. Moreover, group-related survival and recurrence analysis have been performed.

RESULTS

In contrast to observations from overseas, no association of travel distance and higher cTNM status or UICC stage at primary diagnosis has been observed. Furthermore, no significant differences for recurrence-free survival and overall survival by travel distance were detected.

CONCLUSION

In southern Germany, travel distance to head and neck cancer centers seems to be tolerable. Travel burden is not synonymous with travel distance alone but also involves sociodemographic, monetary, and disease-specific aspects as well as accessibility to proper infrastructure of transport and health care system.

Value-Based Healthcare in Urology: A Collaborative Review

CONTEXT

In response to growing concerns over rising costs and major variation in quality, improving value for patients has been proposed as a fundamentally new strategy for how healthcare should be delivered, measured, and remunerated.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature regarding the implementation and impact of value-based healthcare in urology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed to identify studies that described the implementation of one or more elements of value-based healthcare in urologic settings and in which the associated change in healthcare value had been measured. Twenty-two publications were selected for inclusion.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Reorganization of urologic care around medical conditions was associated with increased use of guidelines-compliant care for men with prostate cancer, and improved outcomes for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Measuring outcomes for every patient was associated with improved prostate cancer outcomes, while the measurement of costs using time-driven activity-based costing was associated with reduced resource utilization in a pediatric multidisciplinary clinic. Centralization of urologic cancer care in the UK, Denmark, and Canada was associated with overall improved outcomes, although systems integration in the USA yielded mixed results among urologic cancer patients. No studies have yet examined bundled payments for episodes of care, expanding the geographic reach for centers of excellence, or building enabling information technology platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have critically assessed the actual or simulated implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, but the available literature suggests promising early results. In order to effectively redesign care, there is a need for further research to both evaluate the potential results of proposed value-based healthcare interventions and measure their effects where already implemented.

PATIENT SUMMARY

While few studies have evaluated the implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, the available literature suggests promising early results.

Simulating the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery services on travel burden and equity in the English National Health Service: A national population based model for health service re-design

Introduction

There is limited evidence on the impact of centralization of cancer treatment services on patient travel burden and access to treatment. Using prostate cancer surgery as an example, this national study analysis aims to simulate the effect of different centralization scenarios on the number of center closures, patient travel times, and equity in access.

Methods

We used patient‐level data on all men (n = 19,256) undergoing radical prostatectomy in the English National Health Service between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014, and considered three scenarios for centralization of prostate cancer surgery services A: procedure volume, B: availability of specialized services, and C: optimization of capacity. The probability of patients travelling to each of the remaining centers in the choice set was predicted using a conditional logit model, based on preferences revealed through actual hospital selections. Multivariable linear regression analysed the impact on travel time according to patient characteristics.

Results

Scenarios A, B, and C resulted in the closure of 28, 24, and 37 of the 65 radical prostatectomy centers, respectively, affecting 3993 (21%), 5763 (30%), and 7896 (41%) of the men in the study. Despite similar numbers of center closures the expected average increase on travel time was very different for scenario B (+15 minutes) and A (+28 minutes). A distance minimization approach, assigning patients to their next nearest center, with patient preferences not considered, estimated a lower impact on travel burden in all scenarios. The additional travel burden on older, sicker, less affluent patients was evident, but where significant, the absolute difference was very small.

Conclusion

The study provides an innovative simulation approach using national patient‐level datasets, patient preferences based on actual hospital selections, and personal characteristics to inform health service planning. With this approach, we demonstrated for prostate cancer surgery that three different centralization scenarios would lead to similar number of center closures but to different increases in patient travel time, whilst all having a minimal impact on equity.