Urologist practice structure and quality of prostate cancer care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To examine three aspects of urologist practice structure that may affect quality of prostate cancer care: practice size, ownership of an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) device, participation within a multi-specialty group (MSG). Health care reforms focused on improving quality are particularly relevant for prostate cancer given its prevalence and concerns for overdiagnosis and overtreatment.Methods
Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare linked registry, we examined quality of prostate cancer treatment according to each treating urologist's practice size, type (single-specialty vs. MSG) and ownership of IMRT. Mixed models were used to adjust for patient differences.Results
We identified 22,412 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer treated by 2,199 urologists during the study. We observed minimal differences for most quality metrics according to practice size, type, and ownership of IMRT. Adherence to all eligible quality metrics was better among MSGs compared to single specialty groups (20.0% adherence versus 18.2%, p=0.01) whereas there was no significant difference by ownership of IMRT (17.1% adherence in owners versus 18.9% non-owners, p=0.09).Conclusion
Differences in quality across practice size, type and ownership of IMRT were modest, with substantial room for improvement regardless of practice structure.
SUBMITTER: Modi PK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8447938 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer treatment is a significant source of morbidity and spending. Some men with prostate cancer, particularly those with significant health problems, are unlikely to benefit from treatment.ObjectiveTo assess relationships between financial incentives associated with urologist ownership of radiation facilities and treatment for prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2012. Patients were further classified by their risk of dying from noncancer causes in the 10 yr following their cancer diagnosis by using a mortality model derived from comparable patients known to be cancer-free.InterventionUrologists were categorized by their practice affiliation (single-specialty groups by size, multispecialty group) and ownership of a radiation facility.Outcome measurements and analysisUse of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and use of any treatment within 1 yr of diagnosis. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust for patient differences.ResultsAmong men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, use of IMRT ranged from 24% in multispecialty groups to 37% in large urology groups (p<0.001). Patients managed in groups with IMRT ownership (n=5133) were more likely to receive IMRT than those managed by single-specialty groups without ownership (43% vs 30%, p<0.001), regardless of group size. Among patients with a very high risk (> 75%) of noncancer mortality within 10 yr of diagnosis, both IMRT use (42% vs 26%, p<0.001) and overall treatment (53% vs 44%, p<0.001) were more likely in groups with ownership than in those without, respectively.ConclusionsUrologists practicing in single-specialty groups with an ownership interest in radiation therapy are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer, including those with a high risk of noncancer mortality.Patient summaryWe assessed treatment for prostate cancer among urologists with varying levels of financial incentives favoring intervention. Those with stronger incentives, as determined by ownership interest in a radiation facility, were more likely to treat prostate cancer, even when treatment was unlikely to provide a survival benefit to the patient.
| S-EPMC5817042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer.MethodsWe conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group.ResultsOur study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator.ConclusionsWith patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.
| S-EPMC11233078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to assess the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) measured prostate volume in the primary care setting with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) measured prostate volume by the urologist as the reference test. Furthermore, our objective was to assess whether risk-stratification using TAUS prostate volume by the primary care physician could reduce unnecessary referrals to the urologist.MethodsMen in two Dutch primary care offices with a prostate cancer (PCa) screening request received a digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate specific-antigen (PSA), and TAUS prostate volume measurement by the general practitioner, followed by Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) risk assessment. The examination was repeated by a urologist using TRUS. A prostate biopsy was performed in case of a RPCRC positive biopsy advice. A non-inferiority analysis was performed comparing TAUS and TRUS prostate volume differences. A risk-based referral strategy using TAUS and the RPCRC in the primary care setting was compared with the standard referral strategy based on PSA (≥3 ng/mL) and DRE.ResultsA total of 105 men were included with a median PSA of 1.9 ng/mL. The mean prostate volumes measured by TAUS and TRUS were 55 and 45 mL, respectively. The mean overestimation of the prostate volume by TAUS as compared to the reference test was 9.9 mL (95% CI: 5.9-13.8). According to Dutch standard practice, 41 out of 105 (39%) men would have been referred to the urologist. Stratification in primary care based on the RPCRC using TAUS prostate volume would have avoided 29 out of the 41 (71%) referrals, at the expense of non-referral of 5 out of 11 (45%) men with a biopsy indication, according to the urologist.ConclusionsRPCRC-based risk stratification in primary care using TAUS prostate volume measurement is feasible and may prevent unnecessary referrals to the urologist and reduce costs. The accuracy of the risk assessment with TAUS might be improved by sufficient training and centralization to achieve a higher volume of consultations in primary care facilities.
| S-EPMC10006014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2016, the NIH designated sexual and gender minorities (SGM) a health disparity population. The next year, the American Society of Clinical Oncology highlighted the need to improve the suboptimal cancer and survivorship care received by SGM populations. There are currently no evidence-based training programs in culturally competent care of prostate cancer patients who are gay, bisexual and/or transgender. In this selective review, we summarize findings from the largest quantitative studies focused on sexual minority prostate cancer survivors and from 65 interviews with NIH staff, clinicians, and cancer clinics in 11 US cities. The report is divided into three parts and uses a question and answer format to address 21 questions relevant to clinicians providing care to SGM prostate cancer patients. First, we identify population-specific issues that are culturally relevant in the care of SGM patients with prostate cancer. While a body of research has emerged on sexual minority prostate cancer patients, the literature on gender minorities is limited to single case reports and inadequate to inform practice. This review covers definitions, population size, cultural and historical context, sexual behavior, population invisibility, sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in the electronic medical record, disparities and evidence of discrimination in treatment provision. The second part focuses on promoting evidence-informed, patient-centered care. This includes current practices in assessing sexual orientation, management of disclosure of sexual orientation, how to address common problems sexual minority men experience post-treatment, common questions sexual minority patients have, management of urinary incontinence, HIV and STI risk during and post-treatment, and sub-groups of sexual minority patients with worse outcomes. It then identifies how male partners differ in prostate cancer support, current research on rehabilitation for sexual minority men, issues in advanced prostate cancer, and things to avoid with minority patients. Finally, we examine the cultural divide between provider and patient, advocating for cultural humility when working with minority patients. Training programs and continuing education can help providers both to become more aware of their own cultural assumptions, informed about health disparities, and able to provide quality care, and to make clinics more welcoming to SGM patients.
| S-EPMC8350223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeBecause insurers use performance and quality metrics to inform reimbursement, identifying remediable causes of poor-quality cancer care is imperative. We undertook this descriptive cohort study to assess key predictors of women's perceived quality of their breast cancer care and actual guideline-concordant quality of care received.Patients and methodsWe surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer requiring adjuvant treatment who were enrolled onto a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patient assistance to reduce disparities in care. We assessed women's perceived quality of care and perceived quality of the process of getting care, such as getting referrals, test results, and treatments; we abstracted records to determine the actual quality of care.ResultsOf the 374 new patients with early-stage breast cancer enrolled onto the RCT, only a slight majority of women (55%) perceived their quality of care as excellent; 88% actually received good-quality, guideline-concordant care. Excellent perceived quality (P < .001) was significantly associated with patients' perception of the quality of the process of getting care (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.65 to 1.87). Also associated with perceived quality-and mediated by race-were trust in one's physician (adjusted RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.64) and perceived racism, which affected black women more than women of other races/ethnicities (black race-adjusted RR for perceived racism, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87]; black race-adjusted RR for trust, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.90]; c = 0.82 for the model; P < .001). Actual quality of care provided did not affect perceived quality of care received.ConclusionPatients' perceived quality of care differs from their receipt of high-quality care. Mutable targets to improve perceived quality of care include the processes of getting care and trusting their physician.
| S-EPMC3383180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDespite the endorsement of several quality measures for prostate cancer by the National Quality Forum and the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, how consistently physicians adhere to these measures has not been examined. We evaluated regional variation in adherence to these quality measures to identify targets for future quality improvement.Materials and methodsFor this retrospective cohort study we used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data for 2001 to 2007 to identify 53,614 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Patients were assigned to 661 regions (Hospital Service Areas). Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to examine reliability adjusted regional adherence to the endorsed quality measures.ResultsAdherence at the patient level was highly variable, ranging from 33% for treatment by a high volume provider to 76% for receipt of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy while undergoing radiotherapy for high risk cancer. In addition, there was considerable regional variation in adherence to several measures, including pretreatment counseling by a urologist and radiation oncologist (range 9% to 89%, p <0.001), avoiding overuse of bone scans in low risk cancer (range 16% to 96%, p <0.001), treatment by a high volume provider (range 1% to 90%, p <0.001) and followup with radiation oncologists (range 14% to 86%, p <0.001).ConclusionsWe found low adherence rates for most established prostate cancer quality of care measures. Within most measures regional variation in adherence was pronounced. Measures with low adherence and a large amount of regional variation may be important low hanging targets for quality improvement.
| S-EPMC3980045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextFinancial and demographic pressures in US require an understanding of the most efficient distribution of physicians to maximize population-level health benefits. Prior work has assumed a constant negative relationship between physician supply and mortality outcomes throughout the US and has not addressed regional variation.MethodsIn this ecological analysis, geographically weighted regression was used to identify spatially varying relationships between local urologist density and prostate cancer mortality at the county level. Data from 1,492 counties in 30 eastern and southern states from 2006-2010 were analyzed.FindingsThe ordinary least squares (OLS) regression found that, on average, increasing urologist density by 1 urologist per 100,000 people resulted in an expected decrease in prostate cancer mortality of -0.499 deaths per 100,000 men (95% CI -0.709 to -0.289, p-value < 0.001), or a 1.5% decrease. Geographic weighted regression demonstrated that the addition of one urologist per 100,000 people in counties in the southern Mississippi River states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, as well as parts of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin is associated with decrease of 0.411 to 0.916 in prostate cancer mortality per 100,000 men (1.6-3.6%). In contrast, the urologist density was not significantly associated with the prostate state mortality in the new England region.ConclusionsThe strength of association between urologist density and prostate cancer mortality varied regionally. Those areas with the highest potential for effects could be targeted for increasing the supply of urologists, as it associated with the largest predicted improvement in prostate cancer mortality.
| S-EPMC4482500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients who receive surgery from high-volume surgeons tend to have better outcomes. Black patients, however, are less likely to receive surgery from high-volume surgeons.Among men with localized prostate cancer, we examined whether disparities in use of high-volume urologists resulted from racial differences in patients being diagnosed by high-volume urologists and/or changing to high-volume urologists for surgery.Retrospective cohort study from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data.A total of 26,058 black and white men in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 1995 to 2005 that underwent prostatectomy. Patients were linked to their diagnosing urologist and a treating urologist (who performed the surgery).Diagnosis and receipt of prostatectomy by a high-volume urologist, and changing between diagnosing and treating urologistAfter adjustment for confounders, black men were as likely as white men to be diagnosed by a high-volume urologist; however, they were significantly less likely than white men to be treated by a high-volume urologist [odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-0.87]. For men diagnosed by a low-volume urologist, 46.0% changed urologists for their surgery. Black men were significantly less likely to change to a high-volume urologist (relative risk ratio 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79). Racial differences appeared to reflect black and white patients being diagnosed by different urologists and having different rates of changing after being diagnosed by the same urologists.Lower rates of changing to high-volume urologists for surgery among black men contribute to racial disparities in treatment by high-volume surgeons.
| S-EPMC3298812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitals account for approximately 6% of United States' gross domestic product. We examined the association between hospital competition and outcomes in elderly with localized prostate cancer (PCa). We also assessed if race moderated this association.MethodsRetrospective study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare database. Cohort included fee-for-service, African American and white men aged ≥ 66, diagnosed with localized PCa between 1998 and 2011 and their claims between 1997 and 2016. We used Hirschman-Herfindahl index (HHI) to measure of hospital competition. Outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, Medicare expenditure and mortality assessed in acute survivorship phase (two years post-PCa diagnosis), and long-term mortality. We used Generalized Linear Models for analyzing expenditure, Poisson models for ER visits and hospitalizations, and Cox models for mortality. We used propensity score to minimize bias.ResultsAmong 253,176 patients, percent change in incident rate of ER visit was 17% higher for one unit increase in HHI (IRR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.19). Incident rate of ER was 24% higher for whites and 48% higher for African Americans. For one unit increase in HHI, hazard of short-term all-cause mortality was 7% higher for whites and 11% lower for African Americans. The hazard of long-term all-cause mortality was 10% higher for whites and 13% higher for African Americans.ConclusionsLower hospital competition was associated with impaired outcomes of localized PCa care. Magnitude of impairment was higher for African Americans, compared to whites. Future research will explore process through which competition affects outcomes and racial disparity.
| S-EPMC10403840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeOverlooking other medical conditions during cancer treatment and follow-up could result in excess morbidity and mortality, thereby undermining gains associated with early detection and improved treatment of cancer. We compared the quality of care for diabetes patients subsequently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer to matched, diabetic non-cancer controls.MethodsLongitudinal cohort study using primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, United Kingdom. Patients with pre-existing diabetes were followed for up to 5 years after cancer diagnosis, or after an assigned index date (non-cancer controls). Quality of diabetes care was estimated based on Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators. Mixed effects logistic regression analyses were used to compare the unadjusted and adjusted odds of meeting quality measures between cancer patients and controls, overall and stratified by type of cancer.Results3382 cancer patients and 11,135 controls contributed 44,507 person-years of follow-up. In adjusted analyses, cancer patients were less likely to meet five of 14 quality measures, including: total cholesterol ≤ 5 mmol/L (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.90); glycosylated hemoglobin ≤ 59 mmol/mol (adjusted OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85); and albumin creatinine ratio testing (adjusted OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91). However, cancer patients were as likely as their matched controls to meet quality measures for other diabetes services, including retinal screening, foot examination, and dietary review.ConclusionsAlthough in the short-term, cancer patients were less likely to achieve target thresholds for cholesterol and HbA1c, they continued to receive high-quality diabetes primary care throughout 5 years post diagnosis.Implications for cancer survivorsThese findings are important for cancer survivors with pre-existing diabetes because they indicate that high-quality diabetes care is maintained throughout the continuum of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.
| S-EPMC6244927 | biostudies-literature