Impact of Adherence to Quality Measures for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Treatment-related Complications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Quality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfaction, and treatment-related complications. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3708 men with clinically localized prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012, of whom 2601 completed the 1-year survey and underwent complete chart abstraction. Compliance with 6 quality indicators endorsed by national consortia was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to determine the relationship between indicator compliance and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) instrument summary scores, satisfaction scale scores (service satisfaction scale for cancer care), and treatment-related complications. RESULTS: Overall rates of compliance with these quality measures ranged between 64% and 88%. Three of the 6 measures were weakly associated with 1-year sexual function and bowel function scores (ß=-4.6, 1.69, and 2.93, respectively; P≤0.05), whereas the remaining measures had no significant relationship with patient-reported HRQOL outcomes. Satisfaction scores and treatment-related complications were not associated with quality measure compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with available nationally endorsed quality indicators, which were designed to incentivize effective and efficient care, was not associated with clinically important changes in patient-centered outcomes (HRQOL, satisfaction, or complications) within 1-year.

Endockscope: using mobile technology to create global point of service endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent advances and the widespread availability of smartphones have ushered in a new wave of innovations in healthcare. We present our initial experience with Endockscope, a new docking system that optimizes the coupling of the iPhone 4S with modern endoscopes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the United States Air Force resolution target, we compared the image resolution (line pairs/mm) of a flexible cystoscope coupled to the Endockscope+iPhone to the Storz high definition (HD) camera (H3-Z Versatile). We then used the Munsell ColorChecker chart to compare the color resolution with a 0° laparoscope. Furthermore, 12 expert endoscopists blindly compared and evaluated images from a porcine model using a cystoscope and ureteroscope for both systems. Finally, we also compared the cost (average of two company listed prices) and weight (lb) of the two systems. RESULTS: Overall, the image resolution allowed by the Endockscope was identical to the traditional HD camera (4.49 vs 4.49 lp/mm). Red (ΔE=9.26 vs 9.69) demonstrated better color resolution for iPhone, but green (ΔE=7.76 vs 10.95), and blue (ΔE=12.35 vs 14.66) revealed better color resolution with the Storz HD camera. Expert reviews of cystoscopic images acquired with the HD camera were superior in image, color, and overall quality (P=0.002, 0.042, and 0.003). In contrast, the ureteroscopic reviews yielded no statistical difference in image, color, and overall (P=1, 0.203, and 0.120) quality. The overall cost of the Endockscope+iPhone was $154 compared with $46,623 for a standard HD system. The weight of the mobile-coupled system was 0.47 lb and 1.01 lb for the Storz HD camera. CONCLUSION: Endockscope demonstrated feasibility of coupling endoscopes to a smartphone. The lighter and inexpensive Endockscope acquired images of the same resolution and acceptable color resolution. When evaluated by expert endoscopists, the quality of the images overall were equivalent for flexible ureteroscopy and somewhat inferior, but still acceptable for flexible cystoscopy.