Positive environmental impact of remote teleconsultation in urology during the COVID-19 pandemic in a highly populated area.

INTRODUCTION: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a serious environmental issue. The healthcare sector is an important emitter of GHGs. Our aim was to assess the environmental cost of teleconsultations in urology compared to face-to-face consultations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective study of all patients who had a remote teleconsultation over a 2-week period during COVID-19 pandemic. Main outcome was the reduction in CO2e emissions related to teleconsultation compared to face-to-face consultation and was calculated as: total teleconsultation CO2e emissions-total face-to-face consultation CO2e emissions. Secondary outcome measures were the reduction in travel distance and travel time related to teleconsultation. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included. Face-to-face consultations would have resulted in 6699km (4162 miles) of travel (83.7km (52 miles) per patient). Cars were the usual means of transport. CO2e avoided due to lack of travel was calculated at 1.1 tonnes. Teleconsultation was responsible for 1.1kg CO2e while face-to-face consultation emitted 0.5kg of CO2e. Overall, the total reduction in GHGs with teleconsultation was 1141kg CO2e, representing a 99% decrease in emissions. Total savings on transport were 974 € and savings on travel time were 112h (1.4h/patient). CONCLUSIONS: Teleconsultation reduces the environmental impact of face-to-face consultations. The use of teleconsultation in our urology departments resulted in the avoidance of more than 6000km of travel, equivalent to a reduction of 1.1 tonnes of CO2e. Teleconsultation should be considered for specific indications as the healthcare system attempts to become greener. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Adopting Telehealth During The COVID-19 Era: The Urologist's Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the urology providers' (through a range of training levels) experience utilizing telemedicine given the rapid nationwide implementation of telemedicine in urology practices due to COVID-19. Several studies focusing on the patient's perspective have illustrated that telemedicine is comparable to traditional office visits in terms of cost, communication, and overall satisfaction. However, there is sparse data on the provider's experience. METHODS: With IRB approval, we assessed provider satisfaction with telemedicine at Urology programs in the U.S. through an electronic survey. The 25-question survey was based on the Patient Assessment of Communication of Telehealth which is a validated 33 question instrument that has been utilized to assess the quality of patient-provider communication in telemedicine. Experience with telemedicine was assessed in 2 categories: technical aspects and communication with patients. Variables were rated using a 5-point Likert Scale. RESULTS: There were 144 responses to the survey. 50% of providers reported not receiving any formal training in using telemedicine. This differed significantly by training level with 55% of attendings having had received training vs 20% of residents. Providers felt they would most benefit from training in billing (52%) rather than equipment use (33%) or communication (28%). 87% of providers felt comfortable discussing sensitive topics while only 55% felt comfortable using telehealth to schedule surgery (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Urology providers are generally satisfied with their experience communicating with patients via telemedicine and the majority would opt to continue utilizing telemedicine. Nevertheless, many providers are hesitant to schedule surgery via telemedicine. Providers would benefit from formal training in telemedicine.

Outcomes of EAU-endorsed Live Surgical Events over a 5-year Period (2015-2020) and Updated Guidelines from the EAU Live Surgery Committee.

CONTEXT: Live surgery events (LSEs) have been used in all surgical fields for education and training and to demonstrate new techniques. The European Association of Urology (EAU) live surgery guidelines were established in 2014. OBJECTIVE: To review the compliance of outcomes for procedures performed at EAU-affiliated LSEs with the 2014 guidelines and to establish updated guidelines for LSEs and semi-LSEs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Patients from EAU-affiliated LSEs were included for all surgical procedures carried out between January 2015 and January 2020. All these events were pre-evaluated by the EAU Live Surgery Committee and met the criteria for an EAU LSE, with outcomes recorded and submitted to the registry. Data were collected for the type of procedure and for intraoperative and short- and long-term complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 246 procedures were performed across 18 LSEs, with an annual volume ranging from 19 to 74 procedures. These included 109 (44.3%) robot-assisted procedures, 21 (8.5%) laparoscopic procedures, 10 (4%) transurethral bladder procedures, 11 (4.4%) prostate enucleation procedures, 72 (29.2%) endourological procedures, and 23 (9.3%) andrology or reconstruction procedures. A total of 77 different surgical techniques and variations for 55 different types of surgery were performed as LSEs over the past 5 yr. There were 44 (17.8%) short-term complications and 11.3% (nine/79) long-term complications observed, with Clavien grade III/IV complications seen in 5.2% and 7.5% of cases over short- and long-term follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-yr outcomes for EAU LSEs show that they are safe and follow previous guidelines set by the panel. It seems likely that the fine balance between patient safety and educational value might be best achieved if LSEs are performed by local surgeons in their parent hospital with patients and staff they know, and that technological advances will make live streaming a seamless process. The current EAU Live Surgery Committee has updated the guidelines on LSEs and provided new guidelines for semi-live events. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed 5-year outcomes for live surgery events endorsed by the European Association of Urology. We found that the operations carried out at these events were safe and followed the guidelines previously set. We have updated the guidelines and provided new guidelines for semi-live events.

How uro-oncology has been affected by COVID-19 emergency? Data from Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta Oncological Network, Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically hit all Europe and Northern Italy in particular. The reallocation of medical resources has caused a sharp reduction in the activity of many medical disciplines, including urology. The restricted availability of resources is expected to cause a delay in the treatment of urological cancers and to negatively influence the clinical history of many cancer patients. In this study, we describe COVID-19 impact on uro-oncological management in Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, estimating its future impact. METHODS: We performed an online survey in 12 urological centers, belonging to the Oncological Network of Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, to estimate the impact of COVID-19 emergency on their practice. On this basis, we then estimated the medical working capacity needed to absorb all postponed uro-oncological procedures. RESULTS: Most centers (77%) declared to be "much"/"very much" affected by COVID-19 emergency. If uro-oncological consultations for newly diagnosed cancers were often maintained, follow-up consultations were more than halved or even suspended in around two out of three centers. In-office and day-hospital procedures were generally only mildly reduced, whereas major uro-oncological procedures were more than halved or even suspended in 60% of centers. To clear waiting list backlog, the urological working capacity should dramatically increase in the next months; delays greater than 1 month are expected for more than 50% of uro-oncological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 emergency has dramatically slowed down uro-oncological activity in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta. Ideally, uro-oncological patients should be referred to COVID-19-free tertiary urological centers to ensure a timely management.

Genitourinary Medical Oncology Expert Opinion Survey Regarding Treatment Management in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health pandemic has restructured clinical care of patients with cancer throughout the world. The specific changes in the management of genitourinary (GU) cancers in different cancer centers owing to COVID-19 are not known, and some clinical scenarios remain controversial. We conducted an opinion survey to determine what changes in cancer treatment strategies are occurring owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 20-item online survey was sent on May 25, 2020 to 170 expert GU medical oncologists from Europe and North America. The survey solicited responses to changes in GU cancer management in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data was collected and managed via a secure REDCap Database. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 78 (45.8%) of 170 GU oncologists between May 25, 2020 and June 25, 2020. Clinical practice changes owing to COVID-19 in at least one scenario were reported by 79.1% of responders, most pronounced in prostate cancer (71.8%) and least pronounced in urothelial cancer (23%). Preferences for change in management varied by country, with 78% (37/47) of United States oncologists indicating a change in their practice, 57% (4/7) of Canadian oncologists, and 79% (19/24) of European oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests international practice changes are occurring in GU cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The variability in practice changes between countries may reflect differences in COVID-19 case load during the time point of data collection. These results, based on expert opinion during this rapidly changing crisis, may inform the oncologic community regarding the effects of COVID-19 on GU cancer care.

Implementing Continuous Quality Improvement in an Integrated Community Urology Practice: Lessons Learned.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of 2 different continuous quality improvement interventions in an integrated community urology practice. We specifically assessed the impact of audited physician feedback on improving physicians' adoption of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer (CaP) and adherence to a prostate biopsy time-out intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic medical records of Genesis Healthcare Partners were analyzed between August 24, 2011 and September 30, 2020 to evaluate the performance of 2 quality interventions: audited physician feedback to improve active surveillance adoption in low-risk CaP patients, and audited physician feedback to promote adherence to an electronic medical records embedded prostate biopsy time-out template. Physician and Genesis Healthcare Partners group adherence to each quality initiative was compared before and after each intervention type using ANOVA testing. RESULTS: For active surveillance, we consistently saw an increase in active surveillance adoption for low risk CaP patients in association with continuous audited feedback (P < .001). Adherence to the prostate biopsy time-out template improved when audited feedback was provided (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The implementation of clinical guidelines into routine clinical practice remains challenging and poses an obstacle to the improvement of United States healthcare quality. Continuous quality improvement should be a dynamic process, and in our experience, audited feedback coupled with education is most effective.

Refocusing cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom: comparing urology with other specialties.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been the gold standard of cancer care in the UK since the 1990s. We aimed to identify the views of urology cancer MDT members in the UK on improving the functioning of meetings and compare them with those of other specialties to manage the increasing demand on healthcare resources and enhance the care of complex cancer cases. METHODS: We analysed data from 2 national surveys distributed by Cancer Research UK focusing on the views of 2,294 and 1,258 MDT members about cancer MDT meetings. FINDINGS: Most breast, colorectal, lung and urology cancer MDT members felt meetings could be improved in the following areas: time for meeting preparation in job plans, streamlining of patients, auditing meeting decisions and prioritising complex cases. Most urology respondents (87%) agreed some patients could be managed outside a full MDT discussion, but this was lower for other specialties (lung 78%, breast 75%, colorectal 64%). CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate decisions on which patients require discussion in an MDT meeting, factors adding to case complexity across all tumour types were identified, including rare tumour type, cognitive impairment and previous treatment failure. This study confirms that urology MDT members are supportive of changing from reviewing all new cancer diagnoses to discussing complex cases but managing others with a more protocolised pathway. The mechanisms for how to do this and how to ensure the safety of patients require further clarification.

Implementation of a Ureteric Colic Telemedicine Service: A Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a telemedicine service for ureteric colic patients in reducing the number of unnecessary face-to-face consultations and shortening waiting time for appointments. METHODS: A telemedicine workflow was implemented as a quality improvement study using the Plan-Do-Study-Act method. All patients presenting with ureteric colic without high-risk features of fever, severe pain, and hydronephrosis, were recruited, and face-to-face appointments to review scan results were replaced with phone consultations. Data were prospectively collected over 3 years (January 2017 to December 2019). Patient outcomes including the reduction in face-to-face review visits, time to review, reattendance and intervention rates, were tracked in an interrupted time-series analysis, and qualitative feedback was obtained from patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Around 53.2% of patients presenting with ureteric colic were recruited into the telemedicine workflow. A total of 465 patients (46.2%) had normal scan results and 250 patients (24.9%) did not attend their scan appointments, hence reducing the number of face-to-face consultations by 71.1%. A total of 230 patients (22.9%) required subsequent follow-up with urology, while 61 patients (6.1%) were referred to other specialties. Mean (SD) time to review was 30.0 (6.2) days, 6-month intervention rate was 3.4% (n = 34) and unplanned reattendance rate was 3.2% (n = 32). Around 93.1% of patients reported satisfaction with the service. CONCLUSION: The ureteric colic telemedicine service successfully and sustainably reduced the number of face-to-face consultations and time to review without compromising on patient safety. The availability of this telemedicine service has become even more important in helping us provide care to patients with ureteric colic in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Female Representation at High-profile Urology Conferences, 2014-2019: A Leadership Metric.

OBJECTIVE: To measure female leadership through speakership at urology conferences and compare involvement to the overall representation of women in the urologic workforce. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to identify the gender of conference speakers from 2014 to 2019. Six high-profile urology conferences were selected: AUA; SUFU; SPU; SUO; GURS; WCE. Using programming published by each society, the number of invited female speakers at each conference was recorded. Comparisons were made to the proportion of practicing female urologists based on AUA census data. RESULTS: A total of 34 conferences were reviewed. From 2014 to 2019, the percentage of female representation increased from 13.7% to 19.3% (P < .05). The proportion of female speakers at all conferences ranged from 0% to 35.6%. The average absolute increase was 1.3% each year. Female representation at urology conferences in 2019 was significantly greater than female representation in the field (19.3% vs 9.9%, P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is a slight trend of increasing proportion of invited female speakers at academic urology conferences from 2014 to 2019. Although the proportion of women in urology remains low, the trend indicates that the mean proportion of female speakers is higher than the proportion of women in the field. Inclusion of female conference speakers presents an opportunity for increased gender parity within urology leadership.

Gender Bias in Medicine: Does It Exist at AUA Plenary Sessions?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if gender bias exists at the plenary sessions of the American Urological Association (AUA) annual conference by evaluating variations in the use of a professional title (PT) during speaker introductions at these sessions. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed video archives of all plenary sessions from the AUA annual conferences from 2017 to 2019. Videos that included both plenary introducer and speaker were included for analysis. The following data were collected: conference year, gender, and academic rank of "introducer" and of "speaker," and use of PT (ie, doctor) during speaker introduction. Variations in use of PT for introductions of speakers based on gender of introducer and of speaker were analyzed by chi-square tests. RESULTS: Four hundred and fourteen videos were reviewed; 195 (47%) with a composite 622 introducer/speaker pairs were reviewed and analyzed. Only 8.7% of introducers and 14.6% of speakers were female (Table 1). Overall, there was no difference in the use of PT for introductions of female vs male speakers (61.5% vs 60.8%, P = 0.90). However, male speakers were more likely to be introduced as doctor when introduced by a female vs a male (75.60% vs 59.60%, P = 0.04). Female speakers were equally likely to be introduced as doctor regardless of introducer gender. CONCLUSION: Men represented the majority of presenters and speakers in the plenary session at AUA meetings. However, there is not a significant difference in the use of PT for AUA plenary speaker introductions based on gender.

Diagnosis and treatment of infertility in men: AUA/ASRM guideline part II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part II outlines the appropriate management of the male in an infertile couple. Medical therapies, surgical techniques, as well as use of intrauterine insemination (IUI)/in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are covered to allow for optimal patient management. Please refer to Part I for discussion on evaluation of the infertile male and discussion of relevant health conditions that are associated with male infertility. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January 2000 through May 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. (Table 1) This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of male infertility. Such recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm. (Figure 1) CONCLUSION: Male contributions to infertility are prevalent, and specific treatment as well as assisted reproductive techniques are effective at managing male infertility. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.