[Structured quality report of urologic clinics according to section 137 SGB V. Useful information for the patient, marketing tool of the hospitals, leverage wielded by the health insurance companies, or junk data?]. / Strukturierte Qualitätsberichte urologischer Hauptabteilungen gemäss 137 SGB V. Entscheidungshilfe für den Patienten, Marketing-Instrument der Kliniken, Druckmittel der Krankenkassen oder Datenmüll?

In 2005, German hospitals were legally obliged to publish a structured quality report on their data of 2004 including the top 10 diagnosis-related groups, top 10 diagnoses, and top 10 procedures for every specialty. The aim was to increase the transparency for patients, doctors, and health insurance companies. Comparing the quality reports of 248 departments of urology revealed very uniform distributions of diagnoses and diagnosis-related groups. There was a large variety of top 10 procedures, resulting from different interpretations of the coding system, leading to diminished accuracy. The quality reports provide coding specialists with important data, but for patients and nonspecialized doctors, this system is not helpful in improving transparency.

[Management of erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. Urologists' assessment vs patient survey responses]. / Versorgung der erektilen Dysfunktion nach radikaler Prostatektomie in Deutschland. Einschätzung durch den Urologen vs. Patientenbefragung.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this national study was to evaluate ED management after RPX (without any postoperative adjuvant therapy or tumor relapse) from the patient's view compared to the urologist's view. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In May 2003 we queried 1063 urologists and 801 patients following radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy. They were asked about preserved potency without erectile aid, existing wish for ED therapy, recommended or tested erectile aid (oral, transurethral, intracorporal, vacuum constriction device[VCD], penile implant) as well as the long-term use. Return rate: patients 80.1%, urologists 26.7%. RESULTS: According to the urologists' view 9.1% of their affected patients were potent postoperatively without a device, but according to the polled patients only 4.7%. The wish to be treated for erectile dysfunction existed in the urologists' opinion in 46.1% of their patients, while they considered that 44.8% had no wish for treatment. On the other hand, 59.3% of the patients would like to be treated and only 28.5% did not want any kind of treatment. Regarding the long-term use of therapy for ED, the urologists thought that 26.1% of their patients did not receive therapy for the problem, and 69.7% of the patients stated they received no long-term therapy. Only 30.3% of the patients confirmed long-term therapy, while the urologists thought that 73.9% of the patients used an erectile aid. Definite therapy in the urologists' opinion involved: oral medication in 38.4%, MUSE in 3.6%, (SKAT) in 37.3%, VCD in 20.4%, and a prosthesis in 0.3%. Indeed 19.8% of the patients used oral medication, 1.7% MUSE, 26.7% SKAT, 50.9% VCD, and 0.9% penile implant. Considering the satisfaction of patients, urologists thought that 46.2% of the patients were satisfied with their treatment of ED, but only 28.9% of the patients were actually satisfied themselves. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison of patients' and urologists' views shows a clearly different description of the ED situation after RPX. The proportion of patients with a wish for treatment and the proportion of dissatisfied patients are much higher from the patients' view. This demonstrates an undertreatment of ED patients after RPX, which should also be taken into account under the current changes in the German health care system.

[Radical prostatectomy for men aged <56 years with prostate cancer. Cost of illness analysis]. / Radikale Prostatektomie bei Männern unter 56 Jahren mit Prostatakarzinom. Eine Krankheitskostenanalyse.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most frequent malignant tumor in men; 10% of the patients are younger than 56 years at the time of diagnosis and are usually still working. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs of the disease within the first 3 years from diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients (aged <56 years) after radical prostatectomy with curative intent were asked for their social status, professional training and job before and after radical prostatectomy, disablement, length of hospital stay, rehabilitation, early retirement, part-time retirement, retraining program, job-creating measures, and working conditions after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of the 200 patients queried, 177 (88.5%) answered the questionnaire. Prior to the radical prostatectomy 163 patients were employed. They were off work for a mean time of 104.4 days, 83.4% of them received inpatient rehabilitation treatment after surgery, 121 (74.2%) regained full fitness for work, 9 (5.5%) retired on grounds of age, 21 (12.9%) had an early retirement because of the disease, and 12 (7.4%) became unemployed. Within the first 3 years after diagnosis, the following mean costs had to be paid: 465.79 by the patient, 6569.76 by the employer, 16,356.96 by the health insurance, 13,304.88 by the pension scheme, and 3912.57 by the employment office. CONCLUSION: The main costs in patients with prostate cancer and radical prostatectomy have to been paid by the health insurance scheme and the pension scheme; 74.3% of the patients regained full fitness for work. The time until reintegration into work was correlated to the extent of physical labor.