Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Patient Adherence in Managing Renal Masses.

INTRODUCTION: Previous literature suggests socioeconomic status and racial disparities impact management decisions for patients with small renal masses. We aim to build upon these findings and examine how these modalities impact patient adherence to their management plan. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed our Kidney Tumor Program database (n = 1476) containing patients from 2000 to 2020. Socioeconomic status was estimated using 2 modalities: Area Deprivation Index and household income. Patients were then evaluated for differences in adherence, nonadherence, and loss to follow-up. Adherent patients completed all recommended appointments within 6 months of their initial follow-up. Nonadherent patients did not complete all recommended appointments within 6 months of their originally scheduled follow-up but eventually did. Patients lost to follow-up were recommended to follow up but never did. RESULTS: Patient adherence was not significantly different across sex or primary treatment method but differed with respect to race/ethnicity. Black patients were significantly more likely to be nonadherent (P = .021) and lost to follow-up (P = .008). After adjusting for race/ethnicity, Area Deprivation Index and income bracket were significantly associated with adherence and loss to follow-up. Patients with a high socioeconomic status had significantly higher rates of adherence (ADI, quartile [Q] 1 vs Q4, P = .038; income, >$120,000 vs $30,000-$59,999, P < .003) and decreased loss to follow-up (ADI, Q1 vs Q4, P = .03; income, >$120,000 vs $30,000-$59,999, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that Black race and low socioeconomic status are associated with decreased adherence and increased loss to follow-up. Possible strategies to target these disparities include financial assistance programming, social determinants of health screening, and nurse navigator programs.

Lessons Learned: Social Determinants of Health Screening Pilot in 2 Urology Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Unmet social needs lead to adverse health outcomes and contribute to health inequities. Efforts to screen for social determinants of health (SDOH) have occurred primarily within primary care. Here, we describe the feasibility of implementing a workflow for SDOH screening within 2 urology clinics in Charlotte, North Carolina. METHODS: Our pilot was adapted from the WE CARE Model, which integrates a referral to community resources for patients identified with social needs and an optional followup with a navigator for additional assistance. Patients were screened with the validated Healthy Opportunities SDOH tool to assess food, housing, utilities, transportation and physical safety needs; 40 patients were screened at 2 urology clinics, totaling 80 patients. Surveys were sent to 16 clinicians and staff who participated in the pilot to assess feasibility of implementation. RESULTS: In all, 24/80 patients (30%) were screened for 1 or more social needs, with food and housing being the most frequent; 20/24 patients with social need (83%) successfully received a community resource guide, and 13 of those patients also requested a referral. All survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that screening was valuable and allowed them to better understand the needs of their patients. They also felt that understanding SDOH aligns with departmental goals and mission. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that SDOH screening within a urological setting is feasible, and dedicated support staff should be available to ensure adequate followup for patients with unmet needs. Future work is needed to expand resources for patients and optimize workflow for clinicians.

Racial Disparities in Prostate Specific Antigen Screening and Referral to Urology in a Large, Integrated Health Care System: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Contemporary trends and racial disparities in prostate cancer screening and referral to urology for prostate cancer risk are not well characterized, despite consensus that Black men are at higher risk for poor prostate cancer outcomes. The objective of this study was to characterize current racial disparities in prostate cancer screening and referral from primary care to urology for prostate cancer concern within our large, integrated health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from Atrium Health's enterprise data warehouse, which includes patient information from more than 900 care locations across North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. We included all men seen in the ambulatory or outpatient setting between 2014 and 2019 who were ≥40 years old. Clinical and demographic data were collected for all men, including age and race. Racial outcomes were reported for all groups with >2% representation in the population. Between-group comparisons were determined using chi-squared analysis, Wilcoxon rank sum testing and multivariable logistic regression, with significance defined as p <0.05. RESULTS: We observed a significant decrease in prostate specific antigen testing across all age and racial groups in a cohort of 606,985 men at Atrium Health, including 87,189 Black men, with an overall relative decline of 56%. As compared to White men, Black men were more likely to undergo prostate specific antigen testing (adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.22-1.26) and be referred to urology for prostate cancer (adjusted OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.16). CONCLUSIONS: There was a continued significant decline in prostate cancer screening between 2014 and 2019. Despite having modestly elevated odds of being screened for prostate cancer compared to White men, Black men are relatively underscreened when considering that those who undergo prostate specific antigen screening are more likely to be referred by primary care to urology for additional prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Audit of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)® Programs at a Single Institution.

BACKGROUND: As Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) programs expand across numerous subspecialties, growth and sustainability on a system level becomes increasingly important and may benefit from reporting multidisciplinary and financial data. However, the literature on multidisciplinary outcome analysis in ERAS is sparse. This study aims to demonstrate the impact of multidisciplinary ERAS auditing in a hospital system. Additionally, we describe developing a financial metric for use in gaining support for system-wide ERAS adoption and sustainability. METHODS: Data from HPB, colorectal and urology ERAS programs at a single institution were analyzed from a prospective ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS) database from September 2015 to June 2019. Clinical 30-day outcomes for the ERAS cohort (n = 1374) were compared to the EIAS pre-ERAS control (n = 311). Association between improved ERAS compliance and improved outcomes were also assessed for the ERAS cohort. The potential multidisciplinary financial impact was estimated from hospital bed charges. RESULTS: Multidisciplinary auditing demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative length of stay (LOS) (1.5 days, p < 0.001) for ERAS patients in aggregate and improved ERAS compliance was associated with reduced LOS (coefficient - 0.04, p = 0.004). Improved ERAS compliance in aggregate also significantly associated with improved 30-day survival (odds ratio 1.04, p = 0.001). Multidisciplinary analysis also demonstrated a potential financial impact of 44% savings (p < 0.001) by reducing hospital bed charges across all specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary auditing of ERAS programs may improve ERAS program support and expansion. Analysis across subspecialties demonstrated associations between improved ERAS compliance and postoperative LOS as well as 30-day survival, and further suggested a substantial combined financial impact.