RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Patients who seek urologic care have recently reported a high degree of financial toxicity from prescription medications, including management for nephrolithiasis, urinary incontinence, and urological oncology. Estimating out-of-pocket costs can be challenging for urologists in the US because of variable insurance coverage, local pharmacy distributions, and complicated prescription pricing schemes. This article discusses resources that urologists can adopt into their practice and share with patients to help lower out-of-pocket spending for prescription medications. METHODS: We identify 4 online tools that are designed to direct patients toward more affordable prescription medication options: the Medicare Part D Plan Finder, GoodRx, Amazon, and the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. A brief historical overview and summary for patients and clinicians are provided for each online resource. A patient-centered framework is provided to help navigate these 4 available tools in clinic. RESULTS: Among the 4 tools we identify, there are multiples tradeoffs to consider as financial savings and features can vary. First, patients insured by Medicare should explore the Part D Plan Finder each year to compare drug plans. Second, patients who need to urgently refill a prescription at a local pharmacy should visit GoodRx. Third, patients who are prescribed recurrent generic prescriptions for chronic conditions can utilize the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. Finally, patients who are prescribed 3 or more chronic medications can benefit from subscribing to Amazon RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription medications for urologic conditions can be expensive. This article includes 4 online resources that can help patients access medications at their most affordable costs. Urologists can provide this framework to their patients to help support lowering out-of-pocket drug costs.
Assuntos
Medicare Part D , Medicamentos sob Prescrição , Idoso , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Urologistas , Custos e Análise de Custo , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/uso terapêutico , PrescriçõesRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: According to the rapid progress in surgical techniques, a growing number of procedures should be learned during postgraduate training periods. This study aimed to clarify the current situation regarding urological surgical training and identify the perception gap between trainees' competency and the competency expected by instructors in Japan. METHODS: Regarding the 40 urological surgical procedures selected via the Delphi method, we collected data on previous caseloads, current subjective autonomy, and confidence for future skill acquisition from trainees (<15 post-graduate years [PGY]), and the competencies when trainees became attending doctors expected by instructors (>15 PGY), according to a 5-point Likert scale. In total, 174 urologists in Hokkaido Prefecture, Japan were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: The response rate was 96% (165/174). In a large proportion of the procedures, caseloads grew with accumulation of years of clinical practice. However, trainees had limited caseloads of robotic and reconstructive surgeries even after 15 PGY. Trainees showed low subjective competencies at present and low confidence for future skill acquisition in several procedures, such as open cystectomy, ureteroureterostomy, and ureterocystostomy, while instructors expected trainees to be able to perform these procedures independently when they became attending doctors. CONCLUSION: Trainees showed low subjective competencies and low confidence for future skill acquisition in several open and reconstructive procedures, while instructors considered that these procedures should be independently performable by attending doctors. We believe that knowledge of these perception gaps is helpful to develop a practical training program.
Assuntos
Competência Clínica , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos , Urologia , Humanos , Japão , Urologia/educação , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/educação , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/normas , Masculino , Feminino , Inquéritos e Questionários/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação das Necessidades , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina , Adulto , Urologistas/educação , Urologistas/estatística & dados numéricos , Urologistas/normas , Técnica Delphi , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To project the proportion of the urology workforce that is from under-represented in medicine (URiM) groups between 2021-2061. METHODS: Demographic data were obtained from AUA Census and ACGME Data Resource Books. The number of graduating urology residents and proportion of URiM graduating residents were characterized with linear models. Stock and Flow models were used to project future population numbers and proportions of URiM practicing urologists, contingent on assumptions regarding trainee demographics, retirement trends, and growth in the field. RESULTS: Currently, there is an increase in the percentage of URiM graduates by 0.145% per year. If historical trends continue, URiM urologists will likely comprise 16.2% of urology residency graduates and 13.3% of the practicing urological workforce in 2061. These percentages would constitute an underrepresentation of URiM urologists relative to the projected 44.2% of the U.S. population who would identify as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander by 2060.1 An increase in the percentage of URiM graduates by 0.845% per year would result in 44.2% URiM urology residency graduates and 26.1% URiM practicing urologists by 2061. An interactive app was designed to allow for a range of assumptions to be explored and for future data to be incorporated. CONCLUSION: URiM physician representation within urology over the next 40years will remain disproportionately low compared to that of the projected share of people of color in the general U.S. POPULATION: In order to achieve the AUA's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion goals, a concerted effort to implement interventions to recruit, train, and retain a generation of racially diverse urologists appears necessary.
Assuntos
Previsões , Urologia , Humanos , Masculino , Etnicidade/estatística & dados numéricos , Mão de Obra em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Mão de Obra em Saúde/tendências , Internato e Residência/estatística & dados numéricos , Internato e Residência/tendências , Grupos Raciais/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos , Urologistas/estatística & dados numéricos , Urologistas/provisão & distribuição , Urologistas/tendências , Urologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Urologia/educação , Urologia/tendências , Recursos Humanos/estatística & dados numéricos , Recursos Humanos/tendências , Indígena Americano ou Nativo do Alasca , Negro ou Afro-Americano , Hispânico ou Latino , Havaiano Nativo ou Outro Ilhéu do PacíficoRESUMO
Purpose: Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) pose the risk of severe ureteral injury. Our prior studies revealed forces ≤6 Newtons (N) prevent ureteral injury. Accordingly, we sought to define the force urologists and residents in training typically use when placing a UAS. Materials and Methods: Among urologists and urology residents attending two annual urological conferences in 2022, 121 individuals were recruited for the study. Participants inserted 12F, 14F, and 16F UAS into a male genitourinary model containing a concealed force sensor; they also provided demographic information. Analysis was completed using t-tests and Chi-square tests to identify group differences when passing a 16F sheath UAS. Participant traits associated with surpassing or remaining below a minimal force threshold were also explored through polychotomous logistic regression. Results: Participant force distributions were as follows: ≤4N (29%), >6N (45%), and >8N (32%). More years of practice were significantly associated with exerting >6N relative to forces between 4N and 6N; results for >8N relative to 4N and 8N were similar. Compared to high-volume ureteroscopists (those performing >20 ureteroscopies/month), physicians performing ≤20 ureteroscopies/month were significantly less likely to exert forces ≤4N (p = 0.017 and p = 0.041). Of those surpassing 6N and 8N, 15% and 18%, respectively, were high-volume ureteroscopists. Conclusions: Despite years of practice or volume of monthly ureteroscopic cases performed, most urologists failed to pass 16F access sheaths within the ideal range of 4N to 6N (74% of participants) or within a predefined safe range of 4N to 8N (61% of participants).
Assuntos
Ureter , Doenças Urológicas , Humanos , Masculino , Ureter/cirurgia , Ureteroscopia/métodos , UrologistasRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Our study examines the factors associated with urologist availability for younger and older men across the country over a period of 18 years from 2000 to 2018. METHODS: The Area Health Resource Files and US Census Data were analyzed from 2000, 2010, and 2018. The younger male population was defined as men aged 20 to 49, and the older male population was defined as ages 50 to 79. Urologist availability was determined by county at all time points. Logistic regression analysis and geographically weighted regression was completed. RESULTS: Over an 18-year period, overall urologist availability decreased for men by 19.6%. Access to urologist availability for men in metropolitan and rural counties decreased by 9.4% and 29.5%, respectively. Among the younger male cohort, urologist availability increased in metropolitan counties by 4%, but decreased by 16% in rural counties. There was an overall decrease in urologist availability of 28% and 43% in metropolitan and rural counties in the older male population. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that metropolitan status was the most significant factor associated with urologist availability for both male populations. The odds of each independent factor predicting urologist availability for the younger and older male population is dependent on geography. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the male population has seen a decline in urologist availability. This is especially true for the older male residing in a rural county. Predictors of urologist availability depend on geographical regions, and understanding these regional drivers may allow us to better address disparities in urological care.
Assuntos
População Rural , Urologistas , Humanos , Masculino , Idoso , GeografiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Lack of strict indications in current guidelines have led to significant variation in management patterns of small renal masses. The impact of the urologist on the management approach for patients with small renal masses has not been explored previously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with small renal masses from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013 were identified and assigned to primary urologists. Mixed-effects logistic models were used to evaluate factors associated with different management approaches, estimate urologist-level probabilities of each approach, assess management variation, and determine urologist impact on choice of approach. RESULTS: A total of 12,402 patients with 2,794 corresponding primary urologists were included in the study. At the individual urologist level, the estimated case-adjusted probability of different approaches varied markedly: nonsurgical management (mean, 12.8%; range, 4.9%-36.1%); thermal ablation (mean, 10.8%; range, 2.4%-66.3%); partial nephrectomy (mean, 30.1%; range, 10.1%-66.6%); and radical nephrectomy (mean, 40.4%; range, 17.7%-71.6%). Compared to patient and tumor characteristics, the primary urologist was a more influential measured factor, accounting for 13.6% (vs. 12.9%), 33.8% (vs. 2.1%), 15.1% (vs. 8.4%), and 13.5% (vs. 4.0%) of the variation in management choice for nonsurgical management, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in the management of small renal masses and appears to be driven primarily by urologist preference and practice patterns. Our findings emphasize the need for unified guidance regarding management of these masses to reduce unwarranted variation in care.
Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Humanos , Idoso , Estados Unidos , Carcinoma de Células Renais/cirurgia , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Neoplasias Renais/cirurgia , Neoplasias Renais/patologia , Urologistas , Estudos de Coortes , Medicare , NefrectomiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: We performed a study to evaluate the association between urologist performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and quality and spending for prostate cancer care. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 were assigned to their primary urologist. Associated MIPS scores were identified and categorized based on thresholds for payment adjustment as low (worst), moderate, and high (best). Multivariable mixed effects models were used to measure the association between MIPS performance and adherence to quality measures and price standardized spending for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Adherence to quality measures did not vary across MIPS performance groups for pretreatment counselling by both a urologist and radiation oncologist (low-76%, [95% CI 73%-80%], moderate-77% [95% CI 74%-79%], and high-75% [95% CI 74%-76%]) and avoiding treatment in men with a high risk of noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (low-40% [95% CI 35%-45%], moderate-39% [95% CI 36%-43%], high-38% [95% CI 36%-39%]). Men on active surveillance managed by high performers more likely received a confirmatory test (44% [95% CI 43%-46%]) compared to those managed by moderate (38% [95% CI 33%-42%]) performers, but not low performers (36% [95% CI 29%-44%]). There was no difference in adjusted spending across MIPS performance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better performance in MIPS is associated with a higher rate of confirmatory testing in men initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer. However, performance was not associated with other dimensions of quality nor spending.
Assuntos
Medicare , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Idoso , Estados Unidos , Urologistas , Motivação , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , PróstataRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Urology has seen shifts in the management of many urologic conditions with the advent of noninvasive procedures that rely on multidisciplinary radiological modalities. This study seeks to analyze changes in urologists, radiologists, and advanced practice providers (APPs) performing uroradiology procedures over time. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Procedure Summary data from 2010 to 2021 were utilized to examine uroradiology Current Procedural Terminology codes billed by urologists, radiologists, and APPs. Percent of total reimbursement and higher volume procedure count (after excluding providers with <11 procedures by per year) by each provider field was calculated and analyzed for changes in distribution from 2010 to 2021. RESULTS: There were significant changes in all procedures when examining procedure reimbursement distribution in 2010 to 2021 (P < .001). During the period, urology saw decreases in reimbursement proportion as large as 28.7% for kidney cryoablation and increases as large as 14.2% for nephrostomy tube removals. Radiology saw the largest decreases in reimbursement proportion with an 18.9% decrease for nephrostograms, while the largest increase was 23.6% for suprapubic tube placements. APPs saw the largest increase in suprapubic tube changes reimbursement proportion, which rose 14.2% from 2010 to 2021. There were significant changes in proportion in all procedures, except for antegrade stent, renal cryoablation, renal biopsy, and renal thermoablation. CONCLUSIONS: Uroradiology procedures have seen shifts in the distribution of which provider type performs each procedure. Most large changes in reimbursement and procedure proportion were shifted between urology and radiology, with APPs seeing smaller changes.
Assuntos
Doenças Urológicas , Urologia , Idoso , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Urologistas , Medicare , RadiologistasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: While female urologists are known to publish at less frequency than their male peers, The Journal of Sexual Medicine was reported to have among the highest growth in female authorship from 2002 to 2020 in urology journals. AIM: We sought to assess the frequency of female authorship in sexual medicine journals worldwide and the factors that affect this, including the blinded/unblinded review process. METHODS: Eleven sexual medicine journals were assessed for geographic location, peer review method, and SCImago Journal Rank citation index (a metric of citation frequency and prestige). Journals were grouped into top, middle, and bottom quartiles based on metric score. Web of Science was used to access the publications' first, second, last, and corresponding authors from the past 5 years. An internet search or Gender-API.com was used to determine the gender identities of authors. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were performed. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included the likelihood of female authorship (first, second, last, and corresponding) based on journal location and ranking, the clustering of female authors, the journal's peer review process, and the frequency of female editorial board members. RESULTS: Overall, 8938 publications were identified. Women represented 30.7%, 31.3%, 21.3%, and 18.7% of the first, second, last, and corresponding authors, respectively; gender was unable to be assessed for 2.6%, 17.2%, 7.3%, and 2.7%. On univariate analysis, journals from North America, in the top quartile, and with a double-blind review process were more likely to have female authors (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, articles were more likely to have a female first author if they had a double-blind peer review process (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40), a female second author (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.26-2.85), or a female corresponding author (OR, 7.80; 95% CI, 6.69-9.10). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender-concordant mentoring and universal double-blind manuscript review processes may minimize the impact of gender bias and increase female authorship rates, in turn producing more diverse research. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study assessing female authorship in sexual medicine journals. Limitations include not assessing every author listed on articles and being unable to determine gender identities for some authors. CONCLUSION: Female authorship rates are higher than reported rates of practicing female urologists but still lower than their male peers. Female authors were more likely to be published in journals with double-blind peer review processes and when publishing with additional female authors.
Assuntos
Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Urologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Autoria , Sexismo , Urologistas , Revisão por ParesRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]). RESULTS: Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment. CONCLUSIONS: Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Urologistas , Masculino , Humanos , Idoso , Estados Unidos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Propriedade , Medicare , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnósticoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare industry payments from drug and medical device companies to urologists and urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) in 2021. METHODS: We used the 2020 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file to identify single-specialty urology practices, defined as those where the majority of physicians were urologists. We then used the Open Payments Program Year 2021 data to summarize the value and number of industry payments to urologists and APPs, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, in these practices. We calculated the total value and number of payments and median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists and urologic APPs. RESULTS: We identified 4418 urologists and 1099 APPs working in single-specialty urology practices in 2021 (Table 1). Of these, 3646 (87%) urologists received at least one industry payment, totaling $14,755,003 from 116,039 payments, and 954 urologic APPs (87%) received at least one industry payment, including 463 nurse practitioners (85%), totaling $401,283 from 13,035 payments, and 491 physician assistants (89%), totaling $543,429 from 14,626 payments. We observed significantly greater median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists ($620 and 24 payments) compared to urologic APPs ($473 and 21 payments; Pâ¯<â¯.001 and Pâ¯=â¯.017, respectively). CONCLUSION: A similar percentage of urologists and urologic APPs received industry payments in 2021. While urologists received a higher total number and total value of payments in 2021, urologic APPs were a common target of industry marketing payments.
Assuntos
Médicos , Urologia , Idoso , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Urologistas , Medicare , Indústrias , Indústria FarmacêuticaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The availability of oral therapies for advanced prostate cancer allows urologists to continue to care for their patients who develop castration resistance. We compared the prescribing practices of urologists and medical oncologists in treating this patient population. METHODS: The Medicare Part D Prescribers data sets were utilized to identify urologists and medical oncologists who prescribed enzalutamide and/or abiraterone from 2013 to 2019. Each physician was assigned to one of 2 groups: enzalutamide prescriber (physicians that wrote more 30-day prescriptions for enzalutamide than abiraterone) or abiraterone prescriber (opposite). We ran a generalized linear regression to determine factors influencing prescribing preference. RESULTS: In 2019, 4,664 physicians met our inclusion criteria: 23.4% (1,090/4,664) urologists and 76.6% (3,574/4,664) medical oncologists. Urologists were more likely to be enzalutamide prescribers (OR 4.91, CI 4.22-5.74, P < .001) and this held in all regions. Urologists with greater than 60 prescriptions of either drug were not shown to be enzalutamide prescribers (OR 1.18, CI 0.83-1.66, P = .349); 37.9% (5,702/15,062) of abiraterone fills by urologists were for generic compared to 62.5% (57,949/92,741) of abiraterone fills by medical oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: There are dramatic prescribing differences between urologists and medical oncologists. A greater understanding of these differences is a health care imperative.
Assuntos
Medicare Part D , Oncologistas , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração , Masculino , Humanos , Idoso , Estados Unidos , Acetato de Abiraterona/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , UrologistasRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The impact of Medicare reimbursement changes on urology office visit reimbursements has not been fully examined. This study aims to analyze the impact of urology office visit Medicare reimbursements from 2010 to 2021, with a focus on 2021 Medicare payment reforms. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician/Procedure Summary data from 2010-2021 were utilized to examine office visit CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) new patient visit codes 99201-99205 and established patient visit codes 99211-99215 by urologists. Mean office visit reimbursements (2021 USD), CPT specific reimbursements, and proportion of level of service were compared. RESULTS: The 2021 mean visit reimbursement was $110.95, up from $99.42 in 2020 and $94.44 in 2010 (both P < .001). From 2010 to 2020, all CPT codes, except for 99211, had a decrease in mean reimbursement. From 2020 to 2021, there was an increase in mean reimbursement for CPT codes 99205, 99212-99215 and decreases in 99202, 99204 and 99211 (P < .001). New and established patient urology office visits had significant migration of billing codes from 2010 to 2021 (P < .001). New patient visits were most commonly as 99204, which increased from 47% in 2010 to 65% in 2021 (P < .001). The most commonly billed established patient urology visit was 99213 until 2021 when 99214 became the most common at 46% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Urologists have seen increases in mean reimbursements for office visits both before and after the 2021 Medicare payment reform. Contributing factors consist of increased established patient visit reimbursements despite decreased new patient visit reimbursements, and changes in level of CPT code billings.
Assuntos
Medicare , Urologia , Idoso , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Visita a Consultório Médico , Urologistas , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the magnitude and trends in personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to urologists in Japan. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined the personal payments made to urologists by the major pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019. Descriptive analyses were performed on the payment data. All urologists board-certified by the Japanese Urological Association as of March 2022 were included in this study. Trends in personal payments were assessed using the population-averaged generalized estimating equations with panel data of per-physician personal payments. RESULTS: Among 7016 active board-certified urologists, 4962 (70.7%) accepted 53,070 payments totaling $36,424,239 for reimbursement of lecturing, writing, and consulting compensations from 66 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median payments per urologist receiving payments were $1714 [interquartile range(IQR): $700-$4583] in payment amounts and 4.0 (IQR: 2.0-10.0) in the number of payments. Only 1%, 5%, 10%, and 25% of top-paid urologists accepted 36.2%, 64.8%, 75.8%, and 90.1% of overall payments respectively. The payments per urologist and the number of payment contracts had annually increased over this period by 4.1% (95% CI: 2.3%-6.0%, p < 0.001) and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.2%-3.7%, p < 0.001), but there was no significant change in the number of urologists receiving payments, with a relative average annual change of 0.7% (95% CI: -0.15%-1.6%, p = 0.10) between 2016 and 2019. CONCLUSION: Most urologists received personal payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing compensations from pharmaceutical companies in Japan. The payments from pharmaceutical companies had been increasing over the 4-year period. These payments were substantially concentrated on a small number of urologists.
Assuntos
Indústria Farmacêutica , Urologistas , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Japão , Estudos Transversais , Preparações Farmacêuticas , Conflito de Interesses , RevelaçãoRESUMO
Purpose: Determine whether standardized template reporting for the preoperative assessment of potential living renal transplant donors improves the comprehensiveness of radiology reports to meet the needs of urologists performing renal transplants. Methods: Urologist and radiologist stakeholders from renal transplant centres in our province ratified a standardized reporting template for evaluation of potential renal donors. Three centres (A, B, and C) were designated "intervention" groups. Centre D was the control group, given employment of a site-specific standardized template prior to study commencement. Up to 100 consecutive CT scan reports per centre, pre- and post-implementation of standardized reporting, were evaluated for reporting specific outcome measures. Results: At baseline, all intervention groups demonstrated poor reporting of urologist-desired outcome measures. Centre A discussed 5/13 variables (38%), Centre B discussed 6/13 variables (46%), and Centre C only discussed 1/13 variables (8%) with ≥90% reliability. The control group exhibited consistent reporting, with 11/13 variables (85%) reported at ≥90% reliability. All institutions in the intervention group exhibited excellent compliance to structured reporting post-template implementation (Centres A = 95%, B = 100%, and C = 77%, respectively). Additionally, all intervention centres demonstrated a significant improvement in the comprehensiveness of reports post-template implementation, with statistically significant increases in the reporting of all variables under-reported at baseline (P > .01). Conclusion: Standardized templates across our province for CT scans of potential renal donors promote completeness of reports. Radiologists can reliably provide our surgical colleagues with needed preoperative anatomy and incidental findings, helping to determine suitable transplant donors and reduce potential complications associated with organ retrieval.
Assuntos
Transplante de Rim , Urologistas , Humanos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios XRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how urologists in various subspecialties view the climate for female urologists, comparing perceptions of gender inequity based on characteristics including gender, subspecialty training, faculty status, parental status, and years in practice. Despite growth in female representation in urology, gender inequalities in career opportunities and compensation continue to exist. METHODS: An IRB approved survey was sent out to the following list-serves: Society of Urological Oncology (SUO), Society of Endourology (ENDO), Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS), Society of Pediatric Urology (SPU), Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (SUFU), and American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). A validated study, the Culture Conducive to Women's Academic Success (CCWAS) was used, and scores analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and Kruskal-Wallace tests. RESULTS: There were 430 survey responses (35.3% female, 64.7% male). There was a statistically significant difference in CCWAS score for gender, parental status, and society. On multiple regression analysis controlling for gender, parental status and society were not statistically significant. Years in practice and practice type were not significant. Male urologists perceived practice culture toward women as more equitable than their female colleagues, (median [interquartile range] CCWAS score, 203.5 [184.25, 225.0] vs 162.5 [130.75, 188.0]; P < .0001). This discrepancy in perception between genders was consistent across all subcategories; equal access, work-life balance, freedom of gender bias, and leadership support. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there are gender-based differences in how gender inequities are perceived and experienced in urology. Acknowledgment of these differences is the first step in identifying opportunities for improvement.
Assuntos
Urologia , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estados Unidos , Equidade de Gênero , Sexismo , Urologistas , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos UrológicosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To understand gender trends among urologists included in "Top Doctor" lists as more women practice urology, we (1) Evaluated whether Top Doctor lists reflect a contemporary distribution of urologists by gender; (2) Describe regional differences in gender composition of lists; (3) Report similarities and differences among men and women Top Doctors. METHODS: All urologists in regional Top Doctor Castle Connolly lists published in magazines between January 1, 2020 and June 22, 2021 were included. Physician attributes were abstracted. American Urological Association (AUA) census data was used to compare the number of men and women Top Doctor urologists to the number of practicing men and women urologists within each list's zip codes. Log odds ratios (OR) and (95% confidence intervals) were used to compare likelihood of list inclusion by gender overall and by region. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-four Top Doctor urologists from 25 lists were analyzed, of which 42 (8.50%) were women. Women urologists comprised 0%-27.8% of each list, with 7 lists (28.0%) including zero women urologists. Using AUA census data, OR for list inclusion of men urologists compared to women was 1.31 (1.01, 1.70) overall, with OR = 0.78 (0.36, 1.72) in the West, OR = 1.39 (1.03, 1.89) South, OR = 1.46 (0.8, 2.67) Northeast, OR = 1.90 (0.50, 7.18) Midwest. Women top urologists completed fellowship more often than men (66.7%, 55.1%) and were significantly more likely to complete female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) fellowship (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Men urologists were significantly more likely to be included in Top Doctor lists than women urologists. Top women urologists were significantly more likely to complete FPMRS fellowship.
Assuntos
Médicas , Urologia , Masculino , Humanos , Feminino , Estados Unidos , Urologistas , Censos , Bolsas de EstudoRESUMO
The numbers of outpatient surgical procedures in Germany have been stagnating for decades. The Outpatient Surgery Contract (AOP-Vertrag §115 b SGB V, new version), anchored in the Medical Service of the German Statutory Health Insurance Reform Act (MDK-Reformgesetz) aims to increase the numbers of outpatient surgical procedures such that they approach those of other European countries. The umbrella organisation of the German health insurance funds, the German Hospital Society (DKG e.V.) and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) have ordered an expert opinion from the Institute of Health and Social Sciences (IGES). This assessment has been available since 1 April 2022.