Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
BMC Urol ; 18(1): 89, 2018 Oct 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30340572

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The goal of radical prostatectomy is to achieve the optimal balance between complete cancer removal and preserving a patient's urinary and sexual function. Performing a wider excision of peri-prostatic tissue helps achieve negative surgical margins, but can compromise urinary and sexual function. Alternatively, sparing peri-prostatic tissue to maintain functional outcomes may result in an increased risk of cancer recurrence. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of providing surgeons with detailed information about their patient outcomes through a surgical report card. METHODS: We propose a prospective cohort quasi-experimental study. The intervention is the provision of feedback to prostate cancer surgeons via surgical report cards. These report cards will be distributed every 3 months by email and will present surgeons with detailed information, including urinary function, erectile function, and surgical margin outcomes of their patients compared to patients treated by other de-identified surgeons in the study. For the first 12 months of the study, pre-operative, 6-month, and 12-month patient data will be collected but there will be no report cards distributed to surgeons. This will form the pre-feedback cohort. After the pre-feedback cohort has completed accrual, surgeons will receive quarterly report cards. Patients treated after the provision of report cards will comprise the post-feedback cohort. The primary comparison will be post-operative function of the pre-feedback cohort vs. post-feedback cohort. The secondary comparison will be the proportion of patients with positive surgical margins in the two cohorts. Outcomes will be stratified or case-mix adjusted, as appropriate. Assuming a baseline potency of 20% and a baseline continence of 70%, 292 patients will be required for 80% power at an alpha of 5% to detect a 10% improvement in functional outcomes. Assuming 30% of patients may be lost to follow-up, a minimum sample size of 210 patients is required in the pre-feedback cohort and 210 patients in the post-feedback cohort. DISCUSSION: The findings from this study will have an immediate impact on surgeon self-evaluation and we hypothesize surgical report cards will result in improved overall outcomes of men treated with radical prostatectomy.


Asunto(s)
Márgenes de Escisión , Prostatectomía/normas , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Cirujanos , Retroalimentación , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Calidad de Vida , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
EFORT Open Rev ; 6(6): 439-450, 2021 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34267934

RESUMEN

Routine outcome measurements as a critical prerequisite of value-based healthcare have received considerable attention recently. There has been less attention for the last step in value-based healthcare where measurement of outcomes also leads to improvement in the quality of care. This is probably not without reason, since the last part of the learning cycle: 'Closing the loop', seems the hardest to implement.The journey from measuring outcomes to changing daily care can be troublesome. As early adopters of value-based healthcare, we would like to share our 10 years of experience in this journey.Examples of feedback loops are shown based on outcome measurements implemented to improve our daily care process as a focused hand surgery and hand therapy clinic.Feedback loops can be used to improve shared decision making, to monitor or predict treatment progression over time, for extreme value detection, improve journal clubs, and surgeon evaluation.Our goal as surgeons to improve treatment should not stop at the act of implementing routine outcome measurements.We should implement routine analysis and routine feedback loops, because real-time performance feedback can accelerate our learning cycle. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:439-450. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210012.

3.
EFORT Open Rev ; 4(6): 368-376, 2019 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31210974

RESUMEN

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) registers are established in several countries to collect data aiming to improve the results after THA. Monitoring of adverse outcomes after THA has focused mainly on revision surgery, but patient-reported outcomes have also been investigated.Several surgery-related factors influencing the survival of the THA have been thoroughly investigated and have changed clinical practice. These factors include surgical approach, specific implants, the size of the components, type of fixation and different bone cements.Register data have been used to examine the risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding after THA. These investigations have resulted in shorter duration of thromboprophylaxis and a reduced frequency of blood transfusion.Registers may provide specific information to surgeons on the outcome of all THAs that they have performed with a detailed analysis of revisions rates and reasons for the revisions.A number of other stakeholders can use register data to provide benchmarks. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man supplies data to the Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP), which provides benchmarks at 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13 years graded from A*, A, B and C.Future perspectives: National registers have to play a major role in documenting the quality of THA in order to describe best practice and report implant outliers. The registers have to be used for research and post-market surveillance and register data may be a source for intelligent decision tools. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180091.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA