The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Genitourinary Cancer Care: Re-envisioning the Future.

CONTEXT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated rapid changes in medical practice. Many of these changes may add value to care, creating opportunities going forward. OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-informed, expert-derived review of genitourinary cancer care moving forward following the initial COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A collaborative narrative review was conducted using literature published through May 2020 (PubMed), which comprised three main topics: reduced in-person interactions arguing for increasing virtual and image-based care, optimisation of the delivery of care, and the effect of COVID-19 in health care facilities on decision-making by patients and their families. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Patterns of care will evolve following the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine, virtual care, and telemonitoring will increase and could offer broader access to multidisciplinary expertise without increasing costs. Comprehensive and integrative telehealth solutions will be necessary, and should consider patients' mental health and access differences due to socioeconomic status. Investigations and treatments will need to maximise efficiency and minimise health care interactions. Solutions such as one stop clinics, day case surgery, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and oral or less frequent drug dosing will be preferred. The pandemic necessitated a triage of those patients whose treatment should be expedited, delayed, or avoided, and may persist with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in circulation. Patients whose demographic characteristics are at the highest risk of complications from COVID-19 may re-evaluate the benefit of intervention for less aggressive cancers. Clinical research will need to accommodate virtual care and trial participation. Research dissemination and medical education will increasingly utilise virtual platforms, limiting in-person professional engagement; ensure data dissemination; and aim to enhance patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic will have lasting effects on the delivery of health care. These changes offer opportunities to improve access, delivery, and the value of care for patients with genitourinary cancers but raise concerns that physicians and health administrators must consider in order to ensure equitable access to care. PATIENT SUMMARY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the care provided to many patients with genitourinary cancers. This has necessitated a transition to telemedicine, changes in threshold or delays in many treatments, and an opportunity to reimagine patient care to maintain safety and improve value moving forward.

Reducing Harm in Healthcare Systems.

An understanding of the importance of causation of medical errors is important for determining strategies to reduce the harm that they can cause to patients. This paper discusses how dentistry can learn from medicine as well as other industries when developing approaches designed to deal with the causes of errors, rather than their outcomes.

Community participation in health service reform: the development of an innovative remote Aboriginal primary health-care service.

The aim of this study was to describe the reorientation of a remote primary health-care service, in the Kimberley region of Australia, its impact on access to services and the factors instrumental in bringing about change. A unique community-initiated health service partnership was developed between a community-controlled Aboriginal health organisation, a government hospital and a population health unit, in order to overcome the challenges of delivering primary health care to a dispersed, highly disadvantaged Aboriginal population in a very remote area. The shared goals and clear delineation of responsibilities achieved through the partnership reoriented an essentially acute hospital-based service to a prevention-focussed comprehensive primary health-care service, with a focus on systematic screening for chronic disease, interdisciplinary follow up, health promotion, community advocacy and primary prevention. This formal partnership enabled the primary health-care service to meet the major challenges of providing a sustainable, prevention-focussed service in a very remote and socially disadvantaged area.

Outpatient laser ablation of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: is it safe, tolerable and cost-effective?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of outpatient (office-based) laser ablation (OLA), with local anaesthetic, for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in an elderly population with and without photodynamic diagnosis (PDD). To compare the cost-effectiveness of OLA of NMIBC with that of inpatient cystodiathermy (IC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with NMIBC treated with OLA by one consultant surgeon between March 2008 and July 2011 A subgroup of patients had PDD before undergoing OLA. Safety and effectiveness were determined by complications (In the immediate post operative period, at three days and at three months), patient tolerability (visual analogue score) and recurrence rates. The long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of OLA and IC of NMIBC were evaluated using Markov modeling. RESULTS: A total of 74 OLA procedures (44 white-light, 30 PDD) were carried out in 54 patients. The mean (range) patient age was 77 (52-95) years. More than half of the patients had more than three comorbidities. Previous tumour histology ranged from G1pTa to T3. One patient had haematuria for 1 week which settled spontaneously and did not require hospital admission. There were no other complications. The procedure was well tolerated with pain scores of 0-2/10. Additional lesions were found in 21% of patients using PDD that were not found using white light. At 3 months, the percentage of patients who had recurrence after OLA with white light and OLA with PDD were 10.6 and 4.3%, respectively. At 1 year, 65.1% and 46.9% of patients had recurrence. The cost of OLA was found to be much lower than that of IC (£538 vs £1474), even with the addition of PDD (£912 vs £1844). Over the course of a patient's lifetime, OLA was more clinically effective, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), than IC (0.147 [sd 0.059]) and less costly (£2576.42 [sd £7293.07]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000/QALY, as set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, there was an 82% probability that OLA was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the long-term cost-effectiveness of OLA of NMIBC. The results support the use of OLA for the treatment of NMIBC, especially in the elderly.

Assessing the feasibility of a one-stop approach to diagnosis for urological patients.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional publicly funded out-patient services in many specialties are characterised by delays, fragmented diagnostic processes, and overloaded clinics. This is bad for patients as it is clinically dangerous; bad for managers who spend hours managing the failure; bad for doctors who respond by overloading clinics; and bad for purchasers who have to fund the multiple out-patient visits needed. Sound clinical and financial reasons exist for introducing more efficient diagnostic processes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 330 consecutive patients referred to the urology department of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust were invited to attend one of nine one-stop clinics staffed by consultant urologists with specialist registrars, nurses, and clerical staff. Pre-clinic blood and urine tests were ordered based on the referral letter. Clinics had facilities to perform cystoscopy, ultrasound, and urinary flow studies. Correspondence was generated in real time, and a copy given to the patient. RESULTS: Overall, 257 patients attended the clinics. Twenty-three patients cancelled appointments and 50 patients did not attend. Pre-clinic tests were requested in 133 patients and were completed by 86% of the patients who attended. Of patients, 42% were diagnosed and discharged; 28% were listed for surgery, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), or referred to another specialty. About 30% of patients needed further out-patient review; in approximately two-thirds to complete a diagnosis and one-third to review the results of therapy initiated. An estimated 350 appointments and 550 patient visits to hospital were saved. CONCLUSIONS: A one-stop method of consultation is efficient across a range of urological presenting complaints, and dramatically reduces the need for follow-up consultations. It has potential to: (i) reduce delays to being seen in out-patients; (ii) lead to more cost-effective care; and (iii) increase safety and patient satisfaction. It should become the standard of care in urology, and is probably applicable in many other disciplines.