Catheter management after benign transurethral prostate surgery: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To formally assess the appropriateness of different timings of urethral catheter removal after transurethral prostate resection or ablation. Although urethral catheter placement is routine after this common treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), no guidelines inform duration of catheter use. STUDY DESIGN: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: Using a standardized, multiround rating process (ie, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology), an 11-member multidisciplinary panel reviewed a literature summary and rated clinical scenarios for urethral catheter duration after transurethral prostate surgery for BPH as appropriate (ie, benefits outweigh risks), inappropriate, or of uncertain appropriateness. We examined appropriateness across 4 clinical scenarios (no preexisting catheter, preexisting catheter [including intermittent], difficult catheter placement, significant perforation) and 5 durations (postoperative day [POD] 0, 1, 2, 3-6, or ≥7). RESULTS: Urethral catheter removal and first trial of void on POD 1 was rated appropriate for all scenarios except clinically significant perforations. In this case, waiting until POD 3 was deemed the earliest appropriate timing. Waiting 3 or more days to remove the catheter for patients with or without preexisting catheter needs, or for those with difficult catheter placement in the operating room, was rated as inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: We defined clinically relevant guidance statements for the appropriateness of urethral catheter duration after transurethral prostate surgery. Given the lack of guidelines and this robust expert panel approach, these ratings may help clinicians and healthcare systems improve the consistency and quality of care for patients undergoing transurethral surgery for BPH.

Population Health: A New Paradigm for Medicine.

Healthcare delivery system reform has become a dominant topic of conversation throughout the United States. Driven in part by ever-higher national expenditures on health, an increasing number of payers and provider organizations are working to reduce the costs and improve the quality of healthcare. In this article, we demystify the term "Population Health," review some of the larger payer initiatives currently in effect and discuss specific provider group efforts to improve the quality and cost of healthcare for patients.

Improving the reliability of physician "report cards".

BACKGROUND: Performance measures are widely used to profile primary care physicians (PCPs) but their reliability is often limited by small sample sizes. We evaluated the reliability of individual PCP profiles and whether they can be improved by combining measures into composites or by profiling practice groups. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of electronic health record data for patients with diabetes (DM), congestive heart failure (CHF), ischemic vascular disease (IVD), or eligible for preventive care services seen by a PCP within a large, integrated health care system between April 2009 and May 2010. We evaluated performance on 14 measures of DM care, 9 of CHF, 7 of IVD, and 4 of preventive care. RESULTS: There were 51,771 patients observed by 163 physicians in 17 clinics. Few PCPs (0%-60%) could be profiled with 80% reliability using single process or intermediate-outcome measures. Combining measures into single-disease composites improved reliability for DM and preventive care with 74.5% and 76.7% of PCPs having sufficient panel sizes, but composites remained unreliable for CHF and IVD. A total of 85.3% of PCPs could be reliably profiled using a single overall composite. Aggregating PCPs into practice groups (3 to 21 PCPs per group) did not improve reliability in most cases because of little between-group practice variation. CONCLUSIONS: Single measures rarely differentiate between individual PCPs or groups of PCPs reliably. Combining measures into single-disease or multidisease composites can improve reliability for some common conditions, but not all. Assessing PCP practice groups within a single health care system, rather than individual PCPs, did not substantially improve reliability.

Colorectal cancer screening behavior in women attending screening mammography: longitudinal trends and predictors.

PURPOSE: Nationally representative surveys demonstrate that the adherence to screening mammography guidelines are associated with increased prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; however, the incidence of CRC screening in the screening mammography population is unknown. Our purpose was to describe non-fecal occult blood test (FOBT) CRC screening utilization by women prior to and subsequent to screening mammography at a large academic medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the institutional administrative data base, 17,790 women aged 50 and older who underwent screening mammography between 1998 and 2002 were retrospectively identified. We determined that women were current with non-FOBT CRC screening at the time of mammography if they had undergone flexible sigmoidoscopy or double-contrast barium enema in the 5 years or colonoscopy since 1995, the earliest for which data are available. We excluded FOBT as a form of CRC screening because the administrative data base did not adequately capture episodes of FOBT. Women who were not current were considered eligible for non-FOBT CRC screening. We then assessed the number of women who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy, barium enema, or colonoscopy within 12 months following mammography. Age, insurance status, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification, recommendations after screening mammography and year of mammography were examined as potential predictors of non-FOBT CRC screening completion. RESULTS: At the time of mammography, 13.3% women were current with non-FOBT CRC screening. Of women eligible for non-FOBT CRC screening at the time of mammography, 1.1% completed non-FOBT CRC screening within 12 months after mammography. The rate of non-FOBT CRC screening completion increased over time. After multivariate analysis, being insured by a commercial managed care organization or by Medicaid remained significant predictors of non-FOBT CRC screening. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of non-FOBT CRC screening is low in the population of women undergoing screening mammography, with an incidence of 1.0%. Future studies should examine whether delivering CRC screening interventions at a screening mammography visit increase adherence to non-FOBT CRC screening.