Effect of Surgeon and Facility Volume on Outcomes of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Surgery: Implications of Disparities in Access to Care at High-Volume Centers

OBJECTIVE

To report the effect of surgeon and facility volume on outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We also investigate disparities in access to care by identifying demographic predictors of receipt of treatment at high-volume facilities.

METHODS

We used New York State Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) data. We included 18,041 (41.4%) and 25,577 (58.6%) adult patients that underwent TURP and laser procedures in the outpatient setting between January 2005 and December 2018, respectively. Average annual surgeon and facility volumes were broken down by tertile. The effect of volume on short-term outcomes (30-day and 90-day readmission) was examined using mixed-effect logistic regression models. Cox-proportional-hazard models were used to assess the association between volume and long-term stricture development and reoperation. Demographic predictors of treatment at high-volume facilities were assessed using multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

High-volume facilities were more likely to offer laser procedures compared to low-volume facilities. Higher facility and surgeon volume were associated with lower odds of 30 and 90-day readmissions compared to low-volume facilities. There was no difference in reoperation and stricture development between surgeon volume groups. Medicaid insurance, Hispanic ethnicity, and Black race were inversely associated with treatment at high-volume facilities.

CONCLUSION

Higher surgeon and facility volumes were associated with lower odds of readmission. Higher facility volume was associated with lower hazards of reoperation and developing strictures. Medicaid insurance and non-white race were associated with lower odds of treatment at high-volume facilities, highlighting racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to high-volume BPH surgery facilities.

Defining Factors Associated with High-quality Surgery Following Radical Cystectomy: Analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Cystectomy Audit

Background

Radical cystectomy (RC) is associated with high morbidity.

Objective

To evaluate healthcare and surgical factors associated with high-quality RC surgery.

Design setting and participants

Patients within the prospective British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) registry between 2014 and 2017 were included in this study.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

High-quality surgery was defined using pathological (absence of positive surgical margins and a minimum of a level I lymph node dissection template with a minimum yield of ten or more lymph nodes), recovery (length of stay ≤10 d), and technical (intraoperative blood loss <500 ml for open and <300 ml for minimally invasive RC) variables. A multilevel hierarchical mixed-effect logistic regression model was utilised to determine the factors associated with the receipt of high-quality surgery and index admission mortality.

Results and limitations

A total of 4654 patients with a median age of 70.0 yr underwent RC by 152 surgeons at 78 UK hospitals. The median surgeon and hospital operating volumes were 23.0 and 47.0 cases, respectively. A total of 914 patients (19.6%) received high-quality surgery. The minimum annual surgeon volume and hospital volume of ≥20 RCs/surgeon/yr and ≥68 RCs/hospital/yr, respectively, were the thresholds determined to achieve better rates of high-quality RC. The mixed-effect logistic regression model found that recent surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.34, p < 0.001), laparoscopic/robotic RC (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.45-2.37, p < 0.001), and higher annual surgeon operating volume (23.1-33.0 cases [OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.16-2.05, p = 0.003]; ≥33.1 cases [OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.18-2.29, p = 0.003]) were independently associated with high-quality surgery. High-quality surgery was an independent predictor of lower index admission mortality (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.87, p = 0.021).

Conclusions

We report that annual surgeon operating volume and use of minimally invasive RC were predictors of high-quality surgery. Patients receiving high-quality surgery were independently associated with lower index admission mortality. Our results support the role of centralisation of complex oncology and implementation of a quality assurance programme to improve the delivery of care.

Patient summary

In this registry study of patients treated with surgical excision of the urinary bladder for bladder cancer, we report that patients treated by a surgeon with a higher annual operative volume and a minimally invasive approach were associated with the receipt of high-quality surgery. Patients treated with high-quality surgery were more likely to be discharged alive following surgery.

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.

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of essential care throughout the patient journey.

PROSTATE CANCER

Prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer and has a wide variation in outcomes in Europe. It has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges, and is a major healthcare burden. Care must only be a carried out in prostate/urology cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

‘Robosurgeons vs. robosceptics’: can we afford robotic technology or can we afford not to?

Aim:

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robotic technology in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in comparison with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy.

Methods:

Cochrane, Medline and Embase databases were searched for randomised controlled trials to date on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy to assess clinical effectiveness. The British Association of Urology Surgeons database (2014–2016) and Cancer Research UK (2012–2014) were accessed in conjunction with media; keywords included: ‘Da Vinci’, ‘first robotic prostatectomy’, ‘hospital’ to estimate the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in the National Health Service.

Results:

Functional outcome rates improved with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; this benefits the National Health Service financially although the clinical effectiveness may not meet the threshold of clinical importance. Regarding cost-effectiveness, approximately 12/43 (27.9%) centres achieved 150 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year while 26/43 (60.4%) centres have managed to meet 100 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year in 2014–2016. A national mean of 120–130 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year for 2014–2016 was estimated.

Conclusion:

The cost of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is adequately justified if a high volume of surgeries (>150) are performed in high volume centres by high volume experienced surgeons per year. This can be achieved by subsidising the cost of robotic technology, centralisation and establishing robotic training centres.