Improving quality through clinical registries in urology

The utility of clinical registries for guiding clinical practice in upper tract urothelial cancer: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) lacks high-quality evidence to appraise current patterns of presentation, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes as a result of disease rarity and patient heterogeneity. Registries may overcome many of the challenges making clinical trials challenging in UTUC and provide answers to many of the clinical questions that afflict UTUC management. In this narrative review we aim to summarise the design of registries that have contributed to the UTUC literature, discuss their strengths and limitations and the future directions of registries in UTUC.

Methods

Two independent reviewers conducted a search of the OVID MEDLINE database from July 2002-July 2022. Included articles were required to be published in peer reviewed journals and use registry-based methodology to report on UTUC. Search was limited by MeSH and key words and was limited to the English language.

Key Content and Findings

One hundred and forty-four articles were identified and included as reporting on UTUC from a registry-based methodology. Articles utilising registry-based data have substantially increased over the study period with the majority of articles arising from large generalised cancer databases in North America. There has been an increase in UTUC-specific registries in the previous five years that have offered the most granular, complete analysis and these will continue to report in the coming years. The majority of published data assessed epidemiological factors and compared outcomes of treatment modalities with a small proportion of articles focusing on prognostic nomograms and quality of life. Larger cancer registries that contribute the majority of the published analysis are likely subject to significant selection bias when comparing cohorts for treatment analysis and the need for prospective UTUC specific registries is apparent. Future directions include the potential for registry-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical quality registries (CQR) that have the ability to change practice and improve care.

Conclusions

The utilisation of registry-based methodology for analysis in UTUC has increased substantially over the last 20 years. In addition to the utilisation of large cancer registries, the creation of UTUC specific registries is likely to contribute the most granular, translatable data in diagnosis and management.

An evaluation of perioperative surgical procedures and complications in classic bladder exstrophy patients Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Pediatric (NSQIP-P)

INTRODUCTION

Classic bladder exstrophy (CBE) repair report wide variation in success. Given the complexity of CBE care, benefit would be derived from validation of reported outcomes. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Pediatric (NSQIP-P) data, this manuscript evaluates surgical complications for bladder closure and advanced urologic reconstruction in CBE patients.

AIM

The primary aim of this study was to determine complication rates in the CBE population for bladder closure and advanced urologic reconstruction in national studies compared to single-institutional studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Pediatric cases and complications were identified in the 2012-2019 NSQIP-P database in CBE patients who had either bladder closure or advanced urologic reconstruction. Bladder closure was further defined as early (<7 days) or delayed (>7 days). Differences were assessed using Fisher's exact test and analysis was conducted using SPSS with significance defined as p-value <0.05.

RESULTS

302 patients were included; 152 patients underwent bladder closure, and 150 patients underwent advanced urologic reconstruction. The 30-day complication rate for bladder closure is 30.3% and for advanced urologic reconstruction is 24.0% in the CBC cohort. No differences were found in the rates of NSQIP complications between early and delayed bladder closure, though significant differences (p < 0.001) were found in the rates of blood transfusion (17.9 vs 65.3%). This may be due to the different rates of osteotomy (25.0 vs 48.3%) between early and delayed bladder closure. Rates of readmission are 14.7% and rates of reoperation are 8.0% for advanced urologic reconstruction procedures. Both bladder closure and advanced urologic reconstruction had infectious issues in greater than 10% of the population.

DISCUSSION

CBE surgeries nationally carry a higher risk of complications than is reported in most institutional studies. Infectious complications occur greater than 10% of the time in both bladder closure and advanced urologic reconstruction, which should be the source of additional study given the inverse relationship infections pose to surgical success in BE patients. A limitation of this study is that the data is derived from Children's hospitals that elect to participate and includes only data from 30 days after a procedure.

CONCLUSION

CBE complication data for both bladder closure and advanced urologic reconstruction may be underrepresented in the literature.

Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of health condition and outcome registry systems: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Health condition and outcome registry systems (registries) are used to collect data related to diseases and other health-related outcomes in specific populations. The implementation of these programs encounters various barriers and facilitators. Therefore, the present review aimed to identify and classify these barriers and facilitators.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Some databases, including PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, were searched using related keywords. Thereafter, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the required data were collected using a data extraction form and then analyzed by the content analysis method. The obtained data were analyzed separately for research and review studies, and the developed and developing countries were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were reviewed and 175 unique codes were identified, among which 93 barriers and 82 facilitators were identified. Afterward, these factors were classified into the following 7 categories: barriers/facilitators to management and data management, poor/improved collaborations, technological constraints/appropriateness, barriers/facilitators to legal and regulatory factors, considerations/facilitators related to diseases, and poor/improved patients' participation. Although many of these factors have been more cited in the literature related to the developing countries, they were found to be common in both developed and developing countries.

CONCLUSION

Lack of budget, poor performance of managers, low data quality, and low stakeholders' interest/motivation on one hand, and financing, providing adequate training, ensuring data quality, and appropriate data collection on the other hand were found as the most common barriers or facilitators for the success of the registry implementation.

Factors Affecting Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Conversion to Radical Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Multi-Institutional Analysis in the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC)

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors related to the conversion of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) to robot-assisted radical nephrectomy (RRN) based on data collected by a statewide database in Michigan.

METHODS

Using the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative-Kidney mass: Identifying and Defining Necessary Evaluation and therapY (MUSIC-KIDNEY) database we identified 574 patients for whom RPN was planned. Patient and tumor characteristics were obtained including body mass index (BMI), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), RENAL nephrometry score, tumor size, and pathologic staging. Treating centers were subdivided by annualized case volume and academic status. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of these factors on the risk of conversion to RRN from RPN.

RESULTS

The conversion rate of RPN to RN was 5.75% (33/574). The difference in RENAL nephrometry score, tumor stage, and size reached statistical significance on bivariate analysis (p<0.001). The tumor stage also reached statistical significance on multivariate analysis [odds ratio (OR); 95%CI (8.97; 3.93-20.48) p<0.001]. The conversion rate was lower among high-volume versus low-volume practices; however, statistical significance was not reached [5.2% (27/520) vs.11% (6/54); p=0.11].

CONCLUSIONS

 Patient factors such as tumor size and renal nephrometry score are likely related to the conversion of RPN to RRN decisions. The data shows that Michigan urologists appear to appropriately assess intra-operative findings and convert to RRN in cases of more advanced kidney tumors. Lower volume centers appear to trend towards a higher conversion rate. Continued quality improvement tracking analysis may further clarify this relationship.

Evaluating Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Amongst Practicing Urologists: Analysis of the 2018 American Urological Association Census

OBJECTIVE

To describe factors associated with Quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) participation using 2018 American Urological Association Census data. QIPS have become increasingly important in medicine. However, studies about QIPS in urology suggest low levels of participation, with little known about factors predicting non-participation.

METHODS

Results from 2339 census respondents were weighted to estimate 12,660 practicing urologists in the United States. Our primary outcome was participation in QIPS. Predictor variables included demographics, practice setting, rurality, fellowship training, QIPS domains in practice, years in practice, and non-clinical/clinical workload.

RESULTS

QIPS participants and non-participants significantly differed in distributions of age (P = .0299), gender (P = .0013), practice setting (P <.0001), employment (employee vs partner vs owner vs combination; P <.0001), and fellowship training (P <.0001). QIPS participants reported fewer years in practice (21.3 vs 25.9, P = .018) and higher clinical (45.2 vs 39.2, P = .022) and non-clinical (8.76 vs 5.28, P = .002) work hours per week. Non-participation was associated with male gender (OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.03-6.95) and Asian race (OR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.27-5.29) for quality programs and private practice settings (ORs = 8.72-27.8) for patient safety initiatives.

CONCLUSION

QIPS was associated with academic settings. Interventions to increase rates of quality and safety participation should target individual and system-level factors, respectively. Future work should discern barriers to QIPS engagement and its clinical benefits.

The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives

Surgical quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) have been established across the nation in numerous specialties. These QICs have shown efficacy in improving the quality, safety and value of care delivered to patients with a wide range of medical conditions. In recent years, urological QICs have emerged, including regional collaboratives such as the Michigan Urological Surgical Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC), as well as the national American Urological Association Quality Registry Program (AQUA). These urological collaboratives, developed with an initial focus on prostate cancer, have demonstrated an ability to accurately measure prostate cancer outcomes, compare these outcomes among providers and institutions, and enact change among both patients and providers to optimize outcomes for men with prostate cancer. Physician-led regional collaboratives may be uniquely positioned to respond quickly to the rapidly-evolving healthcare landscape and enact practice and provider-level changes when appropriate. This review describes the historical background, current structure and function, and potential future directions of these urologic QICs.

Moving urologic disparities research from evidence synthesis to translational research: a dynamic, multidisciplinary approach to tackling inequalities in urology

Disparities in urology are well-documented but less is known about the role of translational research within existing interventional models to address inequalities. In this narrative review, we utilize an accepted framework of the process of translational research in mitigating disparities to investigate current translational and interventional urologic programs that bridge the gap. Three established, disparity-focused urologic interventional programs were identified and are highlighted in depth. Finally, we extrapolate from these findings to provide 10 policy relevant implications to help move urologic disparities research from evidence synthesis to translational research.

Dhavileswarapu AVL, Naik N, Karimi H, Hegde P, Rai BP, Somani BK. Big Data Analytics in urology: the story so far and the road ahead

Artificial intelligence (AI) has a proven record of application in the field of medicine and is used in various urological conditions such as oncology, urolithiasis, paediatric urology, urogynaecology, infertility and reconstruction. Data is the driving force of AI and the past decades have undoubtedly witnessed an upsurge in healthcare data. Urology is a specialty that has always been at the forefront of innovation and research and has rapidly embraced technologies to improve patient outcomes and experience. Advancements made in Big Data Analytics raised the expectations about the future of urology. This review aims to investigate the role of big data and its blend with AI for trends and use in urology. We explore the different sources of big data in urology and explicate their current and future applications. A positive trend has been exhibited by the advent and implementation of AI in urology with data available from several databases. The extensive use of big data for the diagnosis and treatment of urological disorders is still in its early stage and under validation. In future however, big data will no doubt play a major role in the management of urological conditions.

Development of a core data set for pelvic floor disorder patients registry

OBJECTIVES

Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) are important public health concerns due to their increasing prevalence. Hence, there is an increasing need for developing systematically collected quality data to assist appropriate clinical decision-making. This study aimed to develop a core data set for patients with PFDs based on the PFDs registry.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019. Data were retrieved from electronic databases including PubMed, Embase and Google scholar. Available documents and data systems in clinical centers were also assessed. The Delphi technique was applied to reach a consensus about the data elements using a questionnaire. A panel of experts evaluated the content validity of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

We developed a dataset for PFDs that included two classes of data (65 data items) identified from the related literature. In the Delphi survey, 74 data elements were determined by the experts and final data were divided into two demographic and clinical categories that included 12 and 62 data elements, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This dataset has the potential for standardizing the data by providing accurate, consistent, complete and uniform data elements. Furthermore, it can provide valuable research facilities for clinicians and researchers in the healthcare system resulting in improvement of the quality of care and containment of costs.

Quality Indicators for Bladder Cancer Services: A Collaborative Review

CONTEXT

There is a lack of accepted consensus on what should constitute appropriate quality-of-care indicators for bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the optimal management of bladder cancer and propose quality indicators (QIs).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed to identify literature on current optimal management and potential quality indicators for both non-muscle-invasive (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive (MIBC) bladder cancer. A panel of experts was convened to select a recommended list of QIs.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

For NMIBC, preoperative QIs include tobacco cessation counselling and appropriate imaging before initial transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Intraoperative QIs include administration of antibiotics, proper safe conduct of TURBT using a checklist, and performing restaging TURBT with biopsy of the prostatic urethra in appropriate cases. Postoperative QIs include appropriate receipt of perioperative adjuvant therapy, risk-stratified surveillance, and appropriate decision to change therapy when indicated (eg, bacillus Calmette-Guerin [BCG] unresponsive). For MIBC, preoperative QIs include multidisciplinary care, selection for candidates for continent urinary diversion, receipt of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, time to commencing radical treatment, consideration of trimodal therapy as a bladder-sparing alternative in select patients, preoperative counselling with stoma marking, surgical volume of radical cystectomy, and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Intraoperative QIs include adequacy of lymphadenectomy, blood loss, and operative time. Postoperative QIs include prospective standardised monitoring of morbidity and mortality, negative surgical margins for pT2 disease, appropriate surveillance after primary treatment, and adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in appropriate cases. Participation in clinical trials was highlighted as an important component indicating high quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose a set of QIs for both NMIBC and MIBC based on established clinical guidelines and the available literature. Although there is currently a lack of level 1 evidence for the benefit of implementing these QIs, we believe that the measurement of these QIs could aid in the improvement and benchmarking of optimal care for bladder cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

After a systematic review of existing guidelines and literature, a panel of experts has recommended a set of quality indicators that can help providers and patients measure and strive towards optimal outcomes for bladder cancer care.

Can multicentre urodynamic studies provide high quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness of urodynamics? ICI-RS 2019

Aims

Lower urinary tract (LUT) function can be investigated by urodynamic studies (UDS) to establish underlying functional abnormalities in the LUT. A multicentre registry could present an opportunity to improve the scientific evidence base for UDS. During the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society (ICI‐RS) meeting in Bristol, United Kingdom 2019, an expert panel discussed the potential of a multicentre urodynamic registry to improve the quality of urodynamic output.

Methods

the potential importance of a multicentre urodynamic registry, parameter inclusion, quality control, and pitfalls during a registry roll‐out were reviewed and discussed.

Results and Conclusions

The clinical utility, evaluation, and effectiveness of UDS remain poorly defined due to a lack of high quality evidence and large study populations. Therefore, the ICI‐RS proposes formation of a urodynamic panel for future roll‐out of a registry. The inclusion of basic parameters was discussed and the essential parameters were defined as well as the potential pitfalls of a registry roll‐out. The discussion and recommendations in this paper form the base for future urodynamic registry development.

TECLA-an innovative technical approach for prostate cancer registries

Objective: To present a code-driven, electronic database for patients TrEated with robotic-assisted radiCaL prostAtectomy (TECLA), developed at Innlandet Hospital (IH), Trust, Norway, for research, local quality control and to deliver data to the National Cancer Registry of Norway (CRN). Clinical data are directly extracted from the structured documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR).Materials and methods: The urological department at IH treats about 200 patients with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) annually. All consenting patients registered with the procedure code for RARP are included in TECLA. Clinical data are obtained automatically from the EMR, by structured forms. Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are filled in by the patients on an iPad or a smartphone.Results: The basic construct of TECLA is presented. From August 2017 to June 2018, 200 men were treated with RARP, of which 182 (91%) provided consent for inclusion in the register. Of these, 97% completed the PROM survey before treatment and 91% at 3 months follow-up. PREMs were completed by 78%. All clinical variables for the hospital stay and for the 6-week follow-up were more than 95% complete.Conclusion: This entirely electronic surgical quality register is easy to use, both for patients and clinicians, and has a high capture rate. The data collection is linked to the clinicians' workflow, without double data entry, so entering data does not add any extra work. The register design can be used by other hospitals for various surgical procedures.

Diffusion, outcomes and implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery: a snapshot from the I Go MILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) Registry

The Italian Group of MILS (I Go MILS) prospective registry was established in 2014 with the goals to create a hub for data and projects on a national basis and to promote the diffusion and implementation of MILS programs on a national scale. The primary endpoint of the present study is to give a snapshot of the real diffusion and outcomes of MILS in Italy, while analyzing the role of the registry in the implementation of MILS programs nationwide. The I Go MILS Registry is a prospective and intention-to-treat registry opened to any Italian center performing MILS, without restriction criteria based on number of procedures. The Registry is developed through the eClinical, an electronic platform for the management of clinical trials and is based on 34 clinical variables, regarding indication, intra- and postoperative course. Clinical outcomes and data regarding implementation of MILS activity have been analyzed for the aim of the study. Between November 2014 and June 2017, data from 1678 MILS performed in 48 centers have been collected (mean number of procedures per center 35, range 1-302). 22% of procedures were performed for benign and 78% for malignant disease (HCC constituted the 49.1% and CRLM the 31.2% of malignant tumors). Major liver resections (>3 liver segments), including right and left hepatectomies, trisectionectomies and ALPPS procedures were 10% of the series. Mean blood loss was 200 ± 230 mL Morbidity rate was 20.5% and mortality was 0.3%. 10.4% of cases were converted to open approach. Median length of stay was 5 days. MILS/total resections ratio in 13 experienced centers increased from 14 to 30% after Registry establishment. MILS programs are well established in Italy, with progressive increase both in the number of cases and in the numerosity of centers. The I Go MILS Registry is playing a crucial role in monitoring the development of MILS in the real world on a national basis while giving a significant contribution to the implementation of MILS programs.