Mapping Telemedicine in German Private Practice Urological Care: Implications for Transitioning beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the use and concern of telemedicine among German urologists, and thus, there are no established guidelines for telemedical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urological indications. METHODS: An anonymized survey was conducted among German private practice urologists during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 257 urologists were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (14.0%) of urologists had used telemedicine as part of their consultation, and 221 (86.0%) had not used telemedicine. There was no difference between telemedicine adoption rates between rural and urban settings. Telemedicine users were significantly more satisfied with the information they had received regarding telemedicine issues. Users saw the greatest barrier to telemedicine that patients do not take up the offer of telemedicine. Nonusers were most concerned with unclear indications for telemedicine followed by lesser reimbursements during telemedicine than in-person visitations. Users were significantly more likely to use telemedicine beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists, who wanted to use the service in the future, wanted an active support by the German society of urology and guidelines for telemedicine. Last, users and nonusers preferred telemedicine for non-acute chronic diseases and follow-up visitations. CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine remains a rarely used service among German private practice urologists. Ultimately, to overcome the current challenges, urologists require an active support for the service through the German Society of Urology and telemedical guidelines.

Urology Workforce Changes and Implications for Prostate Cancer Care Among Medicare Enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize national trends in urologist workforce, practice organization, and management of incident prostate cancer. METHODS: Using Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016, we identified all urologists billing Medicare and the practice with which they were affiliated. We characterized groups as solo, small single specialty, large single specialty, multispecialty, specialist, or hospital-owned practices. Using a 20% sample of national Medicare claims, we identified all patients with incident prostate cancer and identified their primary treatment. RESULTS: The number of urologists increased from 9,305 in 2010 to 9,570 in 2016 (P = .03), while the number of practices decreased from 3,588 to 2,861 (P < .001). The proportion of urologists in multispecialty groups increased from 17.1% in 2010 to 28.2% in 2016, while those within solo practices declined from 26.2% to only 15.8% over the same time period. A higher proportion of patients at hospital-owned practices were treated with observation (P < .001) and surgery (P < .001), while a higher proportion of patients at large single specialty practices were treated with radiation therapy (P < .001). CONCLUSION: We characterized shifts in urologist membership from smaller, independent groups to larger, multispecialty or hospital-owned practices. This trend coincides with higher utilization of observation and surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

Trends in urologic oncology clinical practice and medical education under COVID-19 pandemic: An international survey of senior clinical and academic urologists.

OBJECTIVE: Ad-hoc guidelines for managing the COVID-19 pandemic are published worldwide. We investigated international applications of such policies in the urologic-oncology community. METHODS: A 20-item survey was e-mailed via SurveyMonkey to 100 international senior urologic-oncology surgeons. Leaders' policies regarding clinical/surgical management and medical education were surveyed probing demographics, affiliations, urologic-oncologic areas of interest, and current transportation restrictions. Data on COVID-19 burden were retrieved from the ECDC. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric tests (SPSS v.25.0, IBM). RESULTS: Of 100 leaders from 17 countries, 63 responded to our survey, with 58 (92%) reporting university and/or cancer-center affiliations. Policies on new-patient visits remained mostly unchanged, while follow-up visits for low-risk diseases were mostly postponed, for example, 83.3% for small renal mass (SRM). Radical prostatectomy was delayed in 76.2% of cases, while maintaining scheduled timing for radical cystectomy (71.7%). Delays were longer in Europe than in the Americas for kidney cancer (SRM follow-up, P = 0.014), prostate cancer (new visits, P = 0.003), and intravesical therapy for intermediate-risk bladder cancer (P = 0.043). In Europe, COVID-19 burden correlated with policy adaptation, for example, nephrectomy delays for T2 disease (r = 0.5, P =0.005). Regarding education policies, trainees' medical education was mainly unchanged, whereas senior urologists' planned attendance at professional meetings dropped from 6 (IQR 1-11) to 2 (IQR 0-5) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Under COVID-19, senior urologic-oncology surgeons worldwide apply risk-stratified approaches to timing of clinical and surgical schedules. Policies regarding trainee education were not significantly affected. We suggest establishment of an international consortium to create a directive for coping with such future challenges to global healthcare.

National Characteristics of Surgeons Performing Vasectomy: Increasing Specialization and a Persistent Gender Gap.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in the characteristics of urologic surgeons performing vasectomy over time. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study examining surgeon characteristics for case logs from the American Board of Urology between 2004 and 2013. We used generalized estimating equations with a log link and negative binomial distribution to examine demographic differences (gender, rural location, and surgeon volume) in the number of vasectomies surgeons performed over time. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2013, 5316 urologists had case logs collected within the 7-month certification window. The majority of these surgeons self-identified as general urologists (82.8%), and a small proportion identified as andrology and infertility specialists (1.7%). Across all years, the median number of vasectomies performed per certifying surgeon during the study period was 14 (interquartile range 6-26). The majority of vasectomies were performed by high-volume surgeons (≥ 26 vasectomies) ranging from 49.2% to 66.9% annually, whereas the proportion performed by low-volume (≤ 5 vasectomies) surgeons ranged from 3.3% to 6.6% annually. Male surgeons performed vasectomies 2.20 times more frequently than female surgeons (95% confidence interval 1.93-2.49; P <.0001) across the study period with no evidence to suggest this gap changed over time (gender-year interaction 1.01 [95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.06; p = .576]). CONCLUSION: While the majority of urologists performing vasectomy identify as general urologists, there appears to be a focus on vasectomy practice among a small number of high-volume surgeons. Furthermore, while the number of female surgeons performing vasectomies increased, a gender gap persists in the proportion of vasectomies performed by females.

Patterns of Industry Payments to Urologists From 2014-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patterns of financial transaction between industry and urologists in the first 5 years of reporting in the Open Payments Program (OPP) by comparing transactions over time, between academic and nonacademic urologists, and by provider characteristics among academic urologists. METHODS: The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services OPP database was queried for General Payments to urologists from 2014-2018. Faculty at ACGME-accredited urology training programs were identified and characterized via publicly available websites. Industry transfers were analyzed by year, practice setting (academic vs nonacademic), provider characteristics, and AUA section. Payment nature and individual corporate contributions were also summarized. RESULTS: A total of 12,521 urologists - representing 75% of the urology workforce in any given year - received $168 million from industry over the study period. There was no significant trend in payments by year (P = .162). Urologists received a median of $1602 over the study period, though 14% received >$10,000. Payment varied significantly by practice setting (P <.001), with nonacademic urologists receiving more but smaller payments than academic urologists. Among academic urologists, gender (P <.001), department chair status (P <.001), fellowship training (P <.001), and subspecialty (P <.001) were significantly associated with amount of payment from industry. Annual payments from industry varied significantly by AUA section. CONCLUSION: Reporting of physician-industry transactions has not led to a sustained decline in transactions with urologists. Significant differences in industry interaction exist between academic and nonacademic urologists, and values transferred to academic urologists varied by gender, chair status, subspecialty, and AUA section.

Current state of dialysis treatment and vascular access management in Japan.

According to the data from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy, the number of dialysis patients was about 330,000 at the end of 2016. The mean age of newly initiated patients was 69.4 years and that of maintenance was 68.2 years. And, diabetic nephropathy is the most common primary disease, with an incidence rate of 43.2%. These results mean that the systemic vascular condition is getting worse. In spite of these backgrounds, the patients of 97.3% were treated by hemodialysis; therefore, careful management of vascular access is essential to better maintain the condition of patients. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study shows that vascular access modalities are an important factor in determining prognoses of patients and that prognosis in Japan is one of the best worldwide. In Japan, the use of arteriovenous fistulae accounts for 95% of vascular access modalities. However, a statistic by Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy suggests that the use of arteriovenous graft has been increasing. In 2005, Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy Guidelines recommended percutaneous transluminal angioplasty be the first choice for the treatment of vascular access stenosis. Since then, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty has become an important procedure for long-term maintenance of the morphology and function of vascular access. In Japan, approximately 60% of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty are conducted by nephrologists and urologists; in addition, arteriovenous fistulae creation procedures are also performed by them. According to my private opinion, such conditions above show that even in the absence of standardized training on vascular access management, doctors on site perform their duties in an appropriate manner. However, the problems of how we evaluate the specificity in Japan and pass it down the generations still remain.

Consistencies and Discrepancies Between the Expectations of Urology Trainees and the Experience of Practicing Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the expectations of urology trainees with the experience of practicing urologists. METHODS: Residents, fellows, and practicing urologists were surveyed in 2018 regarding weekly work hours, number of hospitals covered, call nights per week, administrative workload relative to residency, annual net income, and time to pursue personal interests and hobbies. Urology trainees, defined as residents and fellows, were also surveyed regarding their expectations for clinical practice. The expectations of trainees were compared with the reported experience of practicing urologists using 1-tailed t test and chi-square analysis. Trainee expectations were also stratified by age, gender, training level, relationship status, and whether trainees had dependent children. RESULTS: The expectations of 99 trainees were compared with the reported experience of 377 practicing urologists. Trainees expect to work more hours but less call nights per week than reported by practicing urologists while annual net income was either consistent or underestimated. Compared to practicing urologists, however, trainees appear to underestimate the administrative workload relative to residency and overestimate time to pursue personal interests and hobbies. Junior residents were more likely to underestimate administrative workload than senior residents and fellows. CONCLUSION: While the expectations of urology trainees for work hours and annual net income were fairly consistent with those reported by practicing urologists, trainees may underestimate administrative workload and overestimate time to pursue personal interests and hobbies.

Analyzing the current practice patterns and views among urologists regarding focal therapy for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (CaP) has been shown to have encouraging short-term oncological outcomes, excellent preservation of functional outcomes and is increasing in popularity in urologic community. We aim to evaluate the preferences and practice trends among urologists regarding this treatment strategy. METHODS: A 20 item online questionnaire was designed to collect information on urologists' views and use of FT. The survey was sent to the members of the Endourological Society and the American Urological Association. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors for utilization of FT. RESULTS: A total of 425 responses were received [American Urological Association: 319, Endourological Society: 106]. Mean age of respondents was 53(SD: 11.3) years. Although half of the respondents (50.8%) believed FT to be moderate to extremely beneficial in the treatment of CaP, only 24.2% (103) of the respondents currently utilize FT in their practice. Respondents who were fellowship trained in urologic oncology were more likely to consider FT to be at least moderately beneficial (P < 0.001). Surgeon's experience (greater than 15 years in urology practice) (P = 0.025) and seeing more than 10 patients with new CaP diagnosis per month (P = 0.002) were independent predictors of FT utilization for localized CaP. While the most common setting for utilization of FT was in patients with unilateral intermediate-risk (72.8%) CaP, a small percentage of respondents also used FT for patients with unilateral high-risk CaP and bilateral intermediate risk (21.4% and 10.7%, respectively). Most common reasons for not using FT were the lack of belief in 'index lesion theory' (63.2%), lack of experience (41.3%), lack of belief in FT's efficacy (41.1%), lack of infrastructure (35.8%), difficult salvage treatment in cases of recurrence (22.7%) and high cost (21.8%). About 57.6% would use FT more often in an office or outpatient setting if they had access to reliable and cost-effective options. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of our respondents utilize FT in their practice with surgeon's experience being the important independent predictor for using FT. Majority of respondents though consider FT to be beneficial in CaP management, would use it more often if provided more reliable and cost-effective options. Over time, experience and accessibility to reliable methods to perform FT may lead to further utilization of this novel treatment strategy.

El urólogo del futuro y las nuevas tecnologías / The urologist of the future and new technologies

Los últimos 25 años han supuesto un cambio revolucionario para la medicina y en particular en urología: Internet estaba en sus inicios, las historias clínicas se escribían en papel, las búsquedas de información médica se realizaban en la biblioteca de los hospitales, los artículos médicos se fotocopiaban y la relación con nuestros pacientes sólo era presencial. Las redes sociales no habían hecho su aparición y hasta Google no existía. Imaginemos ahora lo que pueden deparar los próximos 25 años. Vamos a asistir a cambios todavía más radicales. El urólogo del futuro va a vivir la llegada de la inteligencia artificial, la medicina colaborativa, la telemedicina, el machine learning, el internet de las cosas y la robótica personalizada; mientras tanto, las redes sociales seguirán transformando la interacción médico/paciente. También la formación de los urólogos será diferente gracias a las nuevas tecnologías de aprendizaje como serán la realidad virtual o la realidad aumentada. IBM Watson Health a través de su sistema de inteligencia artificial y sus algoritmos de aprendizaje se convertirá en nuestro imprescindible compañero de viaje. El urólogo del futuro, además de médico, tendrá que adquirir las habilidades tecnológicas necesarias para utilizar todas estas nuevas herramientas que ya asoman por el horizonte (AU)

The last 25 years have brought about revolutionary changes for medicine and in particular for urology: internet was only in its infancy, medical records were written on paper, searches for medical information were done in the hospital library, medical articles were photocopied and our relationship with patients only existed face to face. Social networks had not yet appeared and even Google did not exist. Just imagine what might happen during the next 25 years, we're going to see even more radical changes. The urologist of the future is going to see the arrival of artificial intelligence, collaborative medicine, telemedicine, machine learning, the Internet of Things and personalized robotics; in the meantime, social media will continue to transform the interaction between physician and patient. The training of urologists will also be different thanks to new learning technologies such as virtual reality or augmented reality. IBM Watson Health through its system of artificial intelligence and its learning algorithms will become our essential travel companion. The urologist of the future, as well as physician, will have to acquire the necessary technological skills in order to use all these new tools which are already on the horizon (AU)

Interventional nephrology: current status and clinical impact in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Current status and clinical significance of interventional nephrology has not been reported from Japan. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed twice to the directors of all 534 Japanese certificated nephrology training institutions in 2014. The main questions were current performance, categorized annual procedure volume and managers of peritoneal dialysis (PD) access, vascular access (VA) surgery, endovascular intervention, and kidney biopsy. Frequencies of nephrologist involvement between high volume center and low volume center and association between the level of nephrologists' involvement to each procedure and annual procedure volume were examined. RESULTS: 332 (62.2%) institutions answered performance of all procedures and 328 (61.4%) institutions answered all procedure volume. Kidney biopsy, VA surgery, endovascular intervention and PD access surgery were performed by any doctors in 94.2, 96.3, 88.4, and 76.2% and each involvement of nephrologist was 93.9, 54.1, 53.1 and 47.6%, respectively. Cochran-Armitage analyses demonstrated significant increases in all 4 procedure volume with greater management by nephrologists (p < 0.01). Nephrologists involvement to VA surgery associated with procedure volume increase in not only VA surgery, but also PD catheter insertion (p < 0.01) and kidney biopsy (p < 0.05). And nephrologists involvement to PD catheter insertion also associated with surgical volume increase in both VA surgery (p < 0.01) and endovascular intervention (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Main manager of all 4 procedures was nephrologist in Japan. Each procedure volume increased as nephrologists become more involved. Acquisition of one specific procedure by nephrologist associated with increase not only in this specific procedure volume, but also the other procedure volume.

Management of Anterior Urethral Strictures in Adults: A Survey of Contemporary Practice in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment methods of anterior urethral strictures in adults have undergone considerable changes in the recent past. Our goal was to determine national practice patterns among German urologists and to compare results with the results of prior international surveys. METHODS: We conducted a survey on the management of urethral strictures among German urologists. RESULTS: Eight hundred forty-five urologists, representing about 14.6% of German urologists, answered the survey. Most common procedures were direct vision internal urethrotomy (DVIU; 87.2%), blind internal urethrotomy (57.5%), dilatation (56.3%), ventral buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty (31.6%) and excision and primary anastomosis (28.9%). In case of a 3.5-cm bulbar stricture and in the case of a 1-cm bulbar stricture after 2 failed DVIUs, a consecutive urethroplasty was significantly more often favoured compared to transurethral treatment options (44.9 vs. 21.3% and 59.4 vs. 8.3%, both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Open urethral reconstruction reveals to be a more common method in practice nowadays. Adherence to recommended treatment algorithms improved in comparison to prior surveys.

Trends in Operating Room Assistance for Major Urologic Surgical Procedures: An Increasing Role for Advanced Practice Providers.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize changes in surgical assistance patterns over time for commonly performed urologic operations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used the Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File to identify cases performed by urologists from 2003 to 2014. Current Procedural Terminology modifiers were used to identify operations assisted by second surgeons and advanced practice providers (APPs). Rates were reported annually for 6 common urologic operations, and average annual rates of change were determined using least squares regression and tested using t tests (α = .05). RESULTS: Of the urologic operations analyzed, 5.0% of cases (n = 33,895) were assisted by APPs compared with 27.0% (n = 182,842) assisted by a second surgeon. The proportion of cases assisted by an APP rose significantly for all procedures; conversely, the proportion of cases assisted by a second surgeon declined significantly for all procedures, except for open partial nephrectomy. The largest changes were seen in robotic prostatectomies for which second surgeon assistance fell from 26% in 2004 to 15% in 2014, whereas APP assistance rose from <1% to 7%. CONCLUSION: Urologists are increasingly using APPs as assistants in surgery, particularly in robotic and laparoscopic operations. This trend will likely continue as the shortage of urologists worsens in the coming years.