Achieving quality assurance of prostate cancer surgery during reorganisation of cancer services

European Urology

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 22-29

  Cathcart, Paul ^a,b,c   Sridhara, Ashwin ^a   Ramachandran, Navin ^a   Briggs, Timothy ^a   Nathan, Senthil ^a   Kelly, John ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Outcomes research; Prostate cancer; Quality of care; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SERVICE; CANCER SURGERY; CONTINENCE; DIAPER; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; ICIQ (INCONTINENCE); MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SCORING SYSTEM; UNITED KINGDOM; COHORT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ODDS RATIO; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY INCONTINENCE; VIDEORECORDING;

COHORT STUDIES; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; HUMANS; INTERRUPTED TIME SERIES ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC MODELS; LONDON; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; ODDS RATIO; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; STATE MEDICINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY INCONTINENCE; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 84942987879     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.028     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Guidance on cancer services: improving outcomes in urological cancers. National Institute for Clinical Excellence Web site. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/csguc/evidence/improving-outcomes-inurological-cancers-manual-2.
2. A model of care for cancer services: clinical paper. London Cancer Web site. http://www.londoncancer.org/media/11816/cancermodel-of-care.pdf.
3. Excellent care through partnership. London Cancer Web site. www.londoncancer.org.
4. Powles T, Kelly J. Innovation: London Cancer-multidisciplinary approach to urological cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013;10:609-10.
5. London Cancer specialist services reconfiguration: a case for change in specialist cancer services. England NHS Web site. www.england. nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cancer-clin-props.pdf.
6. Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013;64:786-98.
7. Wilson A, Marlow NE, Maddern GJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on patient outcome. ANZ J Surg 2010;80:24-9.
8. Eastham JA. Do high-volume hospitals and surgeons provide better care in urologic oncology? Urol Oncol 2009;27:417-21.
9. Wilt TJ, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, MacDonald R, Kane RL. Association between hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Urol 2008;180:820-8, discussion 828-9.
10. Holt P, Thompson MM. Centralisation: putting patients first. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010;40:580-1.
11. Karthikesalingam A, Hinchliffe RJ, Poloniecki JD, Loftus IM, Thompson MM, Holt PJ. Centralization harnessing volume-outcome relationships in vascular surgery and aortic aneurysm care should not focus solely on threshold operative caseload. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2010;44:556-9.
12. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Gendrano III N. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a state-of-the-science review. Int J Impot Res 2002;14:226-44.
13. D'Amico AV, Desjardin A, Chung A, et al. Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 1998;82:1887-96.
14. Schlomm T, Huland H, Graefen M. Improving outcome of surgical procedures is not possible without adequate quality measurement. Eur Urol 2014;65:1017-9.
15. TanN, Margolis DJ,McClure TD, et al. Radical prostatectomy: value of prostate MRI in surgical planning. Abdom Imaging 2012;37:664-74.
16. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O'Reilly A, et al. Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1434-42.
17. Klein EA, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al. Surgeon experience is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for all preoperative risk categories. J Urol 2008;179:2212-6, discussion 2216-7.
18. Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011;60:320-9.
19. Stefan Larsson: What doctors can learn from each other HIT Consultant Web site. http://hitconsultant.net/2013/11/18/stefan-larsson-what-doctors-can-learn-from-each-other.
20. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Use of intraoperative video documentation to improve sexual function after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2000;55:62-7.
21. Carter SC, Chiang A, Shah G, et al. Video-based peer feedback through social networking for robotic surgery simulation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2015;261:870-5.