Delineating patient errors in an intracavernosal injection program.

BACKGROUND: Intracavernosal injection therapy (ICI) is a well-established therapeutic strategy for men with erectile dysfunction. Complications are often related to patient error when performong ICI. AIM: The objective of this study was to examine patient errors in an established patient training program for performing ICI and identify factors that could predict major errors. METHODS: Patients enrolled in our ICI program are trained on technical aspects, and dose titration is begun. Patients are given explicit instructions during training, both verbally and in written form. Records were reviewed for men using ICI for ≥6 months. Multivariable analysis was used to define predictors of major errors. OUTCOMES: Errors were listed as minor (zero-response injection, penile bruising, expired medication) and major (errors potentially leading to priapism: dose self-titration, double injecting). RESULTS: Overall, 1368 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean patient age was 66 ± 22 (range 29-91) years. Regarding education, 41% of patients had graduate-level education, 48% had college education, and 11% high school education. Mean follow-up was 3.2 ± 7.6 (range 0.5-12) years. The agents used were trimix (62%), bimix (35%), papaverine (2%), and prostaglandin E1 monotherapy (1%). At least 1 error occurred during self-administration in 42% of patients during their time in the program. Errors included zero response to medication due to technical error (8% of patients), penile bruising (34%), use of an expired bottle (18%), self-titration (5%), and double injecting (4% of patients); 12% of men committed ≥1 error during their time in the program. On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of the occurrence of a major error included: young age, graduate-level education, and <12 months of injection use. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported study to investigate ICI errors and risk factors. The identification of factors predictive of major errors allows for more tailored and intensive training in this subset of patients. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Strengths of this study include a large patient population (1386 men) with a considerable follow-up time. Additionally, the rigorous training, education, and monitoring of the participants, as well as the use of formal definitions, enhances the accuracy and reliability of the results. Despite the strengths of the study, recall bias may be a limitation concern. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients were error free, and the majority of the errors were minor in nature. Major errors occurred in <10% of patients. Younger age, graduate-level education, and less experience with ICI were independent predictors of major errors.

A brief mind-body intervention to reduce pain and anxiety during prostate needle biopsy: a clinically integrated randomized controlled trial with 2-staged consent.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients experience pain, anxiety, and discomfort with prostate biopsy, which may discourage enrollment in active surveillance programs or follow-up biopsy. Guided meditation can significantly reduce pain and anxiety during percutaneous biopsy. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief mind-body intervention on patient-reported outcomes after prostate biopsy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a clinically-integrated randomized controlled trial of a brief mind-body intervention during biopsy compared to usual care at a single tertiary care center from 2018 to 2022. All patients offered transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the clinic with local anesthesia were eligible for enrollment. This clinically integrated trial was conducted simultaneously with a randomized controlled trial of 1-stage and 2-stage consent. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain, anxiety, discomfort, and tolerability on a visual-analog scale (0-10). A 15% improvement was prespecified as clinically relevant. We compared the proportion of men in each arm reporting a severe score (7-10) on any of the 4 scales using Fisher's exact test and then compared means for each scale separately using ANCOVA with randomization stratum (first vs. prior biopsy) as a covariate. RESULTS: Of 263 eligible patients, 238 enrolled (119 per arm). One hundred seventy-two (72%) enrolled with 2-stage consent. A total of 37/94 (39%) and 38/102 (37%) patients randomized to usual care and intervention, respectively, reported severe scores in any of the 4 domains, a difference of 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13, 17%, P = 0.8). There was no evidence of a difference in mean postbiopsy anxiety (P = 0.3), discomfort (P = 0.09), pain (P = 0.4) or tolerability scores (P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: A clinically meaningful benefit for this brief mind-body intervention during prostate biopsy is unlikely. Robust patient enrollment is feasible using 2-stage consent.

Assessing Quality and Safety of an Advanced Practice Provider-led Active Surveillance Clinic for Men with Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: We implemented an advanced practice provider (APP)-led clinic to aid in managing the growing population of men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. Our objective was to evaluate the quality and safety of an established APP-led AS clinic by comparing outcomes with urologist-led biopsies, defined in terms of adherence to scheduled visits and biopsy complications. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 2341 consecutive patients treated in an AS clinic at a high-volume referral center between 2000-2019. We examined the rate of no-show or same-day cancellation of visits for APPs versus urologists and compared the risk of biopsy complications between these providers. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for repeated visits and biopsies. Results: There were significantly more no-shows at APP visits (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.70, p <0.001); however, this only amounted to one no-show every 41 visits. There was no evidence of increased biopsy complications with APPs (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.05-2.49, p =0.3). Patients were not prospectively assigned to APP or urologist management; therefore, unmeasured patient differences could bias our results. Conclusions: We demonstrated that in an established APP-led AS clinic at a high-volume center, APPs achieved acceptable patient adherence to scheduled visits and biopsy complications. Because patients were not continuously managed by one type of provider, further prospective studies are needed to establish equivalent pathologic outcomes in APP-managed AS.