Notable Outcomes and Trackable Events after Surgery: Evaluating an Uncomplicated Recovery after Radical Prostatectomy

Journal of Urology

Volumn 196, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 399-404

  Myers, Stacie N ^a   Ghani, Khurshid R ^a   Dunn, Rodney L ^a   Lane, Brian R ^b   Schervish, Edward W ^c   Gao, Yuqing ^a   Linsell, Susan M ^a   Miller, David C ^a   Montie, James E ^a   Dupree, James M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b SPECTRUM HEALTH   (United States)

^c Michigan Urological Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

data collection; outcome assessment (health care); prostate; prostatectomy; quality improvement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CATHETER; CONVALESCENCE; HOSPITAL READMISSION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; RECTUM INJURY; SURGICAL DRAINAGE; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; CLINICAL TRIAL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MIDDLE AGED; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE TUMOR; REGISTER; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERIOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; REGISTRIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84979713886     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.083     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. 1 Burwell, S.M., Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med, 372, 2015, 897.
2. 2 Hu, J.C., Gu, X., Lipsitz, S.R., et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA, 302, 2009, 1557.
3. 3 Best, W.R., Khuri, S.F., Phelan, M., et al. Identifying patient preoperative risk factors and post operative adverse events in administrative databases: results from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg, 194, 2002, 264.
4. 4 Davis, C.L., Pierce, J.R., Henderson, W., et al. Assessment of the reliability of data collected for the Department of Veteran Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg, 204, 2007, 550.
5. 5 Birkmeyer, J.D., Shahian, D.M., Dimick, J.B., et al. Blueprint for New American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg, 207, 2008, 777.
6. 6 Mitropoulos, D., Artibani, W., Graefen, M., et al. Reporting and grading of complications after urological surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol, 61, 2012, 34.