Patient-centered outcomes of telehealth for the care of rural-residing patients with urologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients residing in rural areas with urologic cancers confront significant obstacles in obtaining oncologic care. In the Pacific Northwest, a sizeable portion of the population lives in a rural county. Telehealth offers a potential access solution. METHODS: Patients receiving urologic care through telehealth or an in-person appointment at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, were surveyed to assess appointment-related satisfaction and travel costs. Patients' residences were classified as rural or urban based on their self-reported ZIP code. Median patient satisfaction scores and appointment-related travel costs were compared by rural versus urban residence within telehealth and in-person appointment groups using Wilcoxon signed-rank or χ2 testing. RESULTS: A total of 1091 patients seen for urologic cancer care between June 2019 and April 2022 were included, 28.7% of which resided in a rural county. Patients were mostly non-Hispanic White (75%) and covered by Medicare (58%). Among rural-residing patients, telehealth and in-person appointment groups had the same median satisfaction score (61; interquartile ratio, 58, 63). More rural-residing than urban-residing patients in the telehealth appointment groups strongly agreed that "Considering the cost and time commitment of my appointment, I would choose to meet with my provider in this setting in the future" (67% vs. 58%, p = .03). Rural-residing patients with in-person appointments carried a higher financial burden than those with telehealth appointments (medians, $80 vs. $0; p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appointment-related costs are high among rural-residing patients traveling for urologic oncologic care. Telehealth provides an affordable solution that does not compromise patient satisfaction.

Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Survival in Micropapillary Urothelial Carcinoma: Data From a Tertiary Referral Center and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

BACKGROUND: Micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (MPC) is a rare urothelial carcinoma variant with conflicting data guiding clinical practice. In this study, we explored oncologic outcomes in relation to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in a retrospective cohort of patients with MPC, alongside data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with MPC or conventional urothelial carcinoma (CUC) without any variant histology undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) in our institution (2003-2018). SEER-Medicare was also queried to identify patients diagnosed with MPC (2004-2015). Clinicopathologic data and treatment modalities were extracted. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon and chi-square tests were used for comparative analysis and Cox regression for identifying clinical covariates associated with OS. RESULTS: Our institutional database yielded 46 patients with MPC and 457 with CUC. In SEER-Medicare, 183 patients with MPC were identified, and 63 (34%) underwent RC. In the institutional cohort, patients with MPC had significantly higher incidence of cN+ (17% vs. 8%), pN+ stage (30% vs. 17%), carcinoma-in-situ (43% vs. 25%), and lymphovascular invasion (30% vs. 16%) at RC versus those with CUC (all P < .05). Pathologic complete response (ypT0N0) to NAC was 33% for MPC and 35% for CUC (P = .899). Median OS was lower for institutional MPC versus CUC in univariate analysis (43.6 vs. 105.3 months, P = .006); however, MPC was not independently associated with OS in the multivariate model. Median OS was 25 months in the SEER MPC cohort for patients undergoing RC, while NAC was not associated with improved OS in that group. CONCLUSION: Pathologic response to NAC was not significantly different between MPC and CUC, while MPC histology was not an independent predictor of OS. Further studies are needed to better understand biological mechanisms behind its aggressive features as well as the role of NAC in this histology variant.

Measuring quality of urology care using a qualified clinical data registry.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) serve as a framework for quality improvement efforts, clinical research endeavors, and participation in reimbursement incentive programs. However, the measurement of quality and the recommendations to guide QCDRs in developing new quality measures is a complex process. In this review, we highlight the government policies that lead to the creation of QCDRs, how QCDR quality measures are developed, and the current QCDRs that focus on urological care. RECENT FINDINGS: QCDRs facilitate participation in the merit-based incentive payment system for reimbursement adjustments. Most QCDRs leverage existing clinical guidelines in the development of new quality measures. In 2018, there are four urology QCDRs with quality measures for many urological conditions. These QCDRs form the infrastructure for quality improvement and provide new resources for research endeavors. SUMMARY: Quality measurement within QCDRs will allow urologists to focus improvement efforts to deliver high-quality urological care while also facilitating reimbursement incentives and creating novel research datasets.

Utilization and outcomes of inpatient surgical care at critical access hospitals in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: There is a growing interest in the quality and cost of care provided at Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), a predominant source of care for many rural populations in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate utilization, outcomes, and costs of inpatient surgery performed at CAHs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing inpatient surgery from 2005 through 2009 at CAHs or non-CAHs was performed using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and American Hospital Association. EXPOSURE: The CAH status of the admitting hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: Among the 1283 CAHs and 3612 non-CAHs reporting to the American Hospital Association, 34.8% and 36.4%, respectively, had at least 1 year of data in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. General surgical, gynecologic, and orthopedic procedures composed 95.8% of inpatient cases at CAHs vs 77.3% at non-CAHs (P < .001). For 8 common procedures examined (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, colorectal cancer resection, cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, knee replacement, hip replacement, and hip fracture repair), mortality was equivalent between CAHs and non-CAHs (P > .05 for all), with the exception that Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hip fracture repair in CAHs had a higher risk of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87). However, despite shorter hospital stays (P ≤ .001 for 4 procedures), costs at CAHs were 9.9% to 30.1% higher (P < .001 for all 8 procedures). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In-hospital mortality for common low-risk procedures is indistinguishable between CAHs and non-CAHs. Although our findings suggest the potential for cost savings, changes in payment policy for CAHs could diminish access to essential surgical care for rural populations.