Urologist practice structure and quality of prostate cancer care.
prostate cancer
quality of care
radiation therapy
value
Journal
Urology practice
ISSN: 2352-0779
Titre abrégé: Urol Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101635343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
entrez:
20
9
2021
pubmed:
21
9
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). Differences in quality across practice size, type and ownership of IMRT were modest, with substantial room for improvement regardless of practice structure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34541260
doi: 10.1097/upj.0000000000000123
pmc: PMC8447938
mid: NIHMS1068258
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
419-424Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01 HS025707
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R37 CA222885
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures:The authors have no conflicts of interest related to this work.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2003 May 15;21(10):1928-36
pubmed: 12743145
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Jun 21;98(12):839-45
pubmed: 16788157
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 20;27(18):2924-30
pubmed: 19433689
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Dec;175(12):1932-9
pubmed: 26501217
J Urol. 2014 Apr;191(4):957-62
pubmed: 24144685
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Dec;53(12):1258-67
pubmed: 11146273
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Mar 15;94(4):683-90
pubmed: 26972640
Eur Urol. 2018 Apr;73(4):491-498
pubmed: 28823605
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 24;369(17):1629-37
pubmed: 24152262
Urol Clin North Am. 2009 Feb;36(1):95-100, vii
pubmed: 19038641
Cancer. 2007 Jun 15;109(12):2445-53
pubmed: 17492683
J Urol. 2014 Sep;192(3):743-8
pubmed: 24681332
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Feb 1;36(2):346-354
pubmed: 28167725
Urology. 2019 Aug;130:65-71
pubmed: 31029672
Eur Urol. 2013 Nov;64(5):786-98
pubmed: 23664423
N Engl J Med. 2001 Jul 12;345(2):99-106
pubmed: 11450679
Lancet. 2012 Dec 8;380(9858):2018-27
pubmed: 23084481
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Aug;30(8):1575-84
pubmed: 21719447
JAMA. 2006 Nov 15;296(19):2329-35
pubmed: 17105795
JAMA. 2009 Dec 9;302(22):2444-50
pubmed: 19996399
Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Mar-Apr;23(2):82-90
pubmed: 15046133
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2218-2220
pubmed: 27959672
Med Care. 2007 May;45(5):401-9
pubmed: 17446826
Cancer. 2003 Mar 15;97(6):1428-35
pubmed: 12627506
JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315(22):2397-8
pubmed: 27213914