Quality of prostate carcinoma care in a statewide public assistance program

Multilingual Self-Management Resources for Prostate Cancer Survivors and Their Partners: Results of a Long-Term Academic-State Health Department Partnership to Promote Survivorship Care

OBJECTIVE

To provide innovative, evidence-based self management information and supportive care for prostate cancer survivors and their partners. We describe how an academic-public partnership facilitated the broad dissemination of evidence-based, multilingual survivorship educational materials via a state-managed prostate cancer website.

METHODS

We outline the steps of an academic-public partnership leading to dissemination of online, survivorship materials as a resource for prostate cancer survivors and their partners. We examined the 5-year utilization of the materials from January 2011 to December 2015 according to 14 content areas (e.g., urinary, bowel, and sexual problems, fatigue, communication, cancer stress) and across 3 languages (English, Spanish, Arabic).

RESULTS

The total number of prostate cancer survivorship materials downloaded from January 2011 to December 2015 was 89,348. The number of downloaded materials increased over time from 6,421 in 2011 to 17,496 in 2015. The most commonly downloaded content area was urine problems (27.5%), followed by bowel problems (23.4%) and sexual side effects (16.2%). The majority of downloaded materials was in English (86.3%), followed by Spanish (9.8%) and Arabic (3.9%).

CONCLUSION

The academic-public partnership facilitated broad dissemination of evidence-based informational materials for prostate cancer survivors and their partners through a state-managed website from 2011 to 2015. Given the increasing role of academic-public partnerships in funding and development of robust, sustainable prostate cancer survivorship resources, this work serves as an introduction to these evidence-based materials and highlights a successful model of engagement between practitioners, research scientists, and public health administration.

Quality assessment in oncology

The movement to improve healthcare quality has led to a need for carefully designed quality indicators that accurately reflect the quality of care. Many different measures have been proposed and continue to be developed by governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. However, given the inherent differences in the delivery of care among medical specialties, the same indicators will not be valid across all of them. Specifically, oncology is a field in which it can be difficult to develop quality indicators, because the effectiveness of an oncologic intervention is often not immediately apparent, and the multidisciplinary nature of the field necessarily involves many different specialties. Existing and emerging comparative effectiveness data are helping to guide evidence-based practice, and the increasing availability of these data provides the opportunity to identify key structure and process measures that predict for quality outcomes. The increasing emphasis on quality and efficiency will continue to compel the medical profession to identify appropriate quality measures to facilitate quality improvement efforts and to guide accreditation, credentialing, and reimbursement. Given the wide-reaching implications of quality metrics, it is essential that they be developed and implemented with scientific rigor. The aims of the present report were to review the current state of quality assessment in oncology, identify existing indicators with the best evidence to support their implementation, and propose a framework for identifying and refining measures most indicative of true quality in oncologic care.

Prostate cancer survivorship: lessons from caring for the uninsured

Since 2001, UCLA has operated

IMPACT

Improving Access, Counseling, and Treatment for Californians with Prostate Cancer (CaP). Funded by the California Department of Public Health, with a cumulative budget of over $80 million, the program provides comprehensive care for low-income, uninsured Californian men with biopsy-proven CaP. Health services research conducted with program enrollees, through the UCLA Men's Health Study, yields an opportunity to perform qualitative and quantitative assessments of patient-reported outcomes in these men, all members of historically underserved, primarily minority populations. This review summarizes data from several studies in which validated instruments were administered longitudinally in 727 participants, prospectively measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL), self-efficacy in interactions with physician interactions, social and emotional health, symptom distress, satisfaction with care, and other patient-reported outcomes.

Racial variation in the pattern and quality of care for prostate cancer in the USA: mind the gap

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on racial variation in the pattern of care (PoC) and quality of care (QoC) for prostate cancer, as there are known racial disparities in the incidence and outcomes of prostate cancer. While there are some biological explanations for these differences, they do not completely explain the variation. Differences in the appropriateness and QoC delivered to men of different racial groups may contribute to disparities in outcome.

METHODS

We searched the USA National Library of Medicine PubMed system for articles pertaining to quality indicators in prostate cancer and racial disparities in QoC for prostate cancer.

RESULTS

While standards for appropriate treatment are not clearly defined, racial variation in the PoC has been reported in several studies, suggesting that African-American men may receive less aggressive treatment. There are validated QoC indicators in prostate cancer, and researchers have begun to evaluate racial variation in adherence to these quality indicators. Further quality comparisons, particularly in structural measures, may need to be performed to fully evaluate differences in QoC.

CONCLUSIONS

There is mounting evidence for racial variation in the PoC and QoC for prostate cancer, which may contribute to observed differences in outcome. While some of the sources of racial variation in quality and outcome have been identified through the development of evidence-based guidelines and validated quality indicators, opportunities exist to identify, study and attempt to resolve other components of the quality gap.

Quality of end-of-life care in low-income, uninsured men dying of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The quality of end-of-life care was assessed in disadvantaged men prospectively enrolled in a public assistance program. That end-of-life care would be aggressive, more so than recommended by quality-of-care guidelines, was hypothesized.

METHODS

Included in the study were all 60 low-income, uninsured men in a state-funded public assistance program who had died since its inception in 2001. To measure quality of end-of-life care, information was collected regarding timing of the institution of new chemotherapeutic regimens, time from administration of last chemotherapy dose to death, the number of inpatient admissions and intensive care unit stays made in the 3 months preceding death, and the number of emergency room visits made in the 12 months before dying. Also noted were hospice use and the timing of hospice referrals.

RESULTS

Eighteen men (30%) enrolled in hospice before death and the average hospice stay lasted 45 days (standard deviation, 32; range, 2-143 days; median, 41 days). Two patients (11%) were enrolled for fewer than 7 days, and none were enrolled for more than 180 days. The average time from administration of the last dose of chemotherapy to death was 104 days. Chemotherapy was never initiated within 3 months of death, and in only 2 instances (6%) was the final chemotherapeutic regimen administered within 2 weeks of dying. Use of hospital resources (emergency room visits, inpatient admissions, and intensive care unit stays) was uniformly low (mean, 1.0 +/- 1.0, 0.65 +/- 0.82, and 0.03 +/- 0.18, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

End-of-life care in disadvantaged men dying of prostate cancer, who enroll in a comprehensive statewide assistance program, is high-quality.

[What is most important is what comes across : Urological guidelines from the target group's point of view]

BACKGROUND

Guidelines are developed to improve the quality of patient care. The effect of German urologic guidelines has not been evaluated so far. Therefore, we aimed to systematically investigate the acceptance, use, and quality of the published guidelines from a user's perspective.

METHODS

A link to an online questionnaire concerning use and barriers to the application of guidelines was distributed via e-mail by the German Society of Urology (DGU). German urologists' opinions on differences in national guideline quality were evaluated regarding prostate cancer (PCA), bladder cancer, germ cell tumors (GCT), renal cell carcinomas, and erectile dysfunction.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty-seven German urologists participated. More than 90% of the participants considered guidelines to be helpful. The Internet as the main tool for guideline distribution was favored by 28.4%, followed by publication in Urologe A. The main barrier to guideline usage was attributed to the lack of up-to date clinical data. Guidelines for GCT scored best in all quality categories and reached the highest level of use (65.8%), and 40.5% of participating urologists considered the additional establishment of comprehensive care centers for GCT as more effective for quality improvement than guideline development alone. For the other urologic tumors, especially PCA, guideline development was favored as a tool for quality improvement.

CONCLUSION

More than 90% of participating urologists accept clinical guidelines as useful instruments in clinical practice and for therapeutic decisions. Our results should be integrated into guideline dissemination and implementation strategies in order to achieve a higher degree of treatment conformation to guidelines.

Prostate cancer severity among low income, uninsured men

PURPOSE

The proportion of American men with organ confined, low risk prostate cancer has increased significantly during the last 2 decades. Whether this trend also applies to men at the extremes of socioeconomic disadvantage remains unknown. Therefore, we evaluated trends in prostate cancer severity in an ethnically diverse cohort of low income, uninsured men served by a state funded public health program in California.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 570 disadvantaged men enrolled in the California program from 2001 through 2006. Using routinely collected clinical variables we defined 2 measures of cancer severity as 1) the proportion of enrollees with metastases at diagnosis and 2) the proportions of men with nonmetastatic tumors whose cancers had low, intermediate or high risk features at diagnosis. We performed bivariate analyses to assess time trends in cancer severity.

RESULTS

Prostate specific antigen levels at diagnosis exceeded 10 ng/ml for 51% of enrollees, 50% had a Gleason score 7 or greater and 43% had clinical T stage T2 or greater. Of disadvantaged men 19% had metastatic cancer at diagnosis and this proportion remained stable over time (p = 0.66). Among men with nonmetastatic cancers 24% had tumors with low risk features and the proportion of low risk cancers did not increase over time (p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike the broader United States population the proportion of disadvantaged men with organ confined, low risk prostate cancer has not been increasing. Thus, while much attention focuses on potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of men with screen detected prostate cancer, our findings suggest that for low income, uninsured men, underdetection and undertreatment remain significant concerns.

Racial disparities in access to care for men in a public assistance program for prostate cancer

California's IMPACT program provides all its enrollees with health insurance and social service resources. We hypothesized that racial/ethnic disparities in access to care might be attenuated among men served by this program. Our objective was to evaluate racial/ethnic differences in health services utilization and patient-reported health care outcomes among disadvantaged men in a prostate cancer public-assistance program, and to identify modifiable factors that might explain persistent disparities in this health care setting. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 357 low-income men enrolled in IMPACT from 2001 through 2005. We evaluated realized access to care with two health services utilization measures: (1) use of emergency department care without hospitalization and, (2) frequency of prostate-specific antigen testing. We also measured two patient-experience outcomes: (1) satisfaction with care received from IMPACT, and (2) confidence in IMPACT care providers. We observed significant bivariate associations between race/ethnicity and patient-experience outcomes (P<0.05), but not utilization measures. In multivariable models, Hispanic men were more likely than white men to report complete satisfaction with health care received in IMPACT (adjusted OR=5.15, 95% CI 1.17-22.6); however, the association between race/ethnicity and satisfaction was not statistically significant (P=0.11). Language preference and self-efficacy in patient-physician interactions are potentially-modifiable predictors of patient-experience outcomes. We observed no racial/ethnic disparities in health services utilization among disadvantaged men served by a disease-specific public assistance program. The greater satisfaction and confidence among Hispanic men are explained by modifiable variables that suggest avenues for improvement.

Assessing the quality of prostate cancer care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Until recently, little was known about the quality of prostate cancer care in the United States. This article provides an overview of the methodology of quality of care research, reviews the available quality measures in prostate cancer and presents an overview of the existing literature on the quality of prostate cancer care in the US.

RECENT FINDINGS

Researchers have applied methodologies developed in other conditions to construct tools to measure the quality of care in this disease. Initially, researchers from the RAND Corporation developed a preliminary performance measure set. This measure set was tested in a number of settings. Along with a number of clinical guidelines, the RAND measures served as the basis of new prostate cancer measures developed by the American Medical Association's Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. Recent studies document that patients undergoing radical prostatectomy had worse documented compliance with quality indicators than those undergoing external beam radiotherapy.

SUMMARY

There is clearly room for improvement in prostate cancer quality of care in the US. If providers do not take the initiative and address these shortcomings, providers and policymakers will implement changes that may not be in the best interests of patients.

Variation in adherence to external beam radiotherapy quality measures among elderly men with localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To characterize the variation in adherence to quality measures of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer and its relation to patient and provider characteristics in a population-based, representative sample of U.S. men.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We evaluated EBRT quality measures proposed by a RAND expert panel of physicians among men aged >or=65 years diagnosed between 2000 and 2002 with localized prostate cancer and treated with primary EBRT using data from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare program. We assessed the adherence to five EBRT quality measures that were amenable to analysis using SEER-Medicare data: (1) use of conformal RT planning; (2) use of high-energy (>10-MV) photons; (3) use of custom immobilization; (4) completion of two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist in the year after therapy; and (5) radiation oncologist board certification.

RESULTS

Of the 11,674 patients, 85% had received conformal RT planning, 75% had received high-energy photons, and 97% had received custom immobilization. One-third of patients had completed two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist, although 91% had at least one visit with a urologist or radiation oncologist. Most patients (85%) had been treated by a board-certified radiation oncologist.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall high adherence to EBRT quality measures masked substantial variation in geography, socioeconomic status in the area of residence, and teaching affiliation of the RT facility. Future research should examine the reasons for the variations in these measures and whether the variation is associated with important clinical outcomes.

Treatment choice and quality of care for men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Variations in patterns of care and treatment outcomes suggest differences in the quality of care for men treated for localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare adherence with quality indicators for prostate cancer care among men treated with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

We sampled 5230 men diagnosed in 2000 or 2001 with early-stage prostate cancer from 984 facilities reporting to the National Cancer Data Base. Our analytic cohort includes 2604 men (from 770 facilities) treated with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Subject-level compliance with the RAND quality indicators for localized prostate cancer care, stratified by treatment. We applied sampling weights to obtain national estimates of quality indicator adherence.

RESULTS

The weighted samples represent 24,547 and 27,125 men treated with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy, respectively. Compliance with several quality indicators approached 100% in both treatment groups; however treatment-specific variations were noted. Men receiving radiation were less likely than those undergoing surgery to be treated in facilities with a board-certified urologist (odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.2-0.8). Adherence with process of care indicators was appreciably higher among radiation subjects, including documentation of clinical stage (OR = 7.5, 95% CI = 4.8-11.9), pretherapy assessment of urinary (OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.9-4.2) and sexual (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.2) function, and discussion of treatment options (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.1-2.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Documented compliance with process of care quality indicators among men with localized prostate cancer appears superior for those treated with external beam radiation compared with those treated surgically.