Management Strategies and Patient Selection After a Hospital Funding Reform for Prostate Cancer Surgery in Canada.

Importance: Hospital funding reforms for prostate cancer surgery may have altered management of localized prostate cancer in the province of Ontario, Canada. Objective: To determine whether changes in hospital funding policy aimed at improving health care quality and value were associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer or the characteristics of patients receiving radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, interrupted time series study used linked population-based administrative data regarding adults in Ontario with incidental localized prostate cancer and those who underwent RP for localized prostate cancer. Patients who underwent RP were compared with patients who underwent surgical procedures for localized renal cell carcinoma, which was not included in the policy change but was subjected to similar secular trends and potential confounders. Monthly outcomes were analyzed using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. Data were collected from January 2011 to November 2017 and analyzed in January 2019. Exposures: Funding policy change in April 2015 from flexible block funding for all hospital-based care to prespecified payment amounts per procedure for treatment of localized prostate cancer, coupled with the dissemination of a diagnosis-specific handbook outlining best practices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Initial management (RP vs radiation therapy vs active surveillance) and tumor risk profiles per management strategy among incident cases of localized prostate cancer. Additional outcomes were case volume, mean length of stay, proportion of patients returning to hospital or emergency department within 30 days, proportion of patients older than 65 years, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index, and proportion of minimally invasive surgical procedures among patients undergoing RP for localized prostate cancer. Results: A total of 33 128 patients with incident localized prostate cancer (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 67 [61-73] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 466 [420-516]), 17 159 patients who received radical prostatectomy (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 209 [183-225]), and 5762 individuals who underwent surgery for renal cell carcinoma (median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 71 [61-77]) were identified. By the end of the observation period, radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy were used in comparable proportions (30.3% and 28.9%, respectively) and included only a small fraction of low-risk patients (6.4% and 2.9%, respectively). No statistically significant association of the funding policy change with most outcomes was found. Conclusions and Relevance: The implementation of funding reform for hospitals offering RP was not associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer, although it may have encouraged more appropriate selection of patients for RP. Mostly preexisting trends toward guideline-conforming practice were observed. Co-occurring policy changes and/or guideline revisions may have weakened signals from the policy change.

Influencing factors leading to malpractice litigation in radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The litigious nature of the medical-legal environment is a major concern for American physicians with an estimated cost of $10 billion. In this study we identify the causes of litigation in cases of radical prostatectomy as well as the factors that contribute to verdicts or settlements resulting in indemnity payments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publicly available verdict reports were recorded using the Westlaw® legal database. To identify pertinent cases we used the search terms "medical malpractice" and "prostate" or "prostatectomy" with dates ranging from 2000 to 2013. Cases were evaluated for alleged cause of malpractice, resulting injury, findings and indemnity payment (if any). RESULTS: The database search yielded 222 cases, with 25 being relevant to radical prostatectomy. Of these cases 24.0% were settled out of court and the remaining 76.0% went to trial. Of those cases that went to trial 20.8% saw patients awarded damages. There was no significant difference in awards between verdict and settlement. Overall 36.0% of patients claimed that they did not receive proper informed consent and 16.0% claimed that the surgery was not the proper standard of care. Thirteen of the cases claimed negligence in the performance of the surgery with the bulk of these claims being the result of rectal perforation. CONCLUSIONS: The main issues that arise in radical prostatectomy malpractice litigation are those of informed consent and clinical performance. Comprehensive preoperative counseling, when combined with proper surgical technique, may minimize the impact of litigation.