Search

Objective: To understand how to potentially improve inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates we used National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines to design and implement a Clinical Reminder Order Check (CROC) that alerts ordering providers of potentially inappropriate imaging orders in real-time based on patient features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer.Methods: We implemented the CROC at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System from April 2, 2015 to November 15, 2017. We then used VA administrative claims from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse to analyze imaging rates among men with low-risk prostate cancer at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System before and after CROC implementation. We also collected and cataloged provider responses in response to overriding the CROC in qualitative analysis. RESULTS FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT: (117/205) of Veterans before CROC installation and 73% (61/83) of Veterans post-intervention with low-risk prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care.Conclusion: While the decrease in inappropriate imaging during our study window was almost certainly due to many factors, a Computerized Patient Record System-based CROC intervention is likely associated with at least moderate improvement in guideline-concordant imaging practices for Veterans with low-risk prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among US men, most new prostate cancer cases are clinically localized and do not require imaging as part of staging workup according to guidelines. Two leading specialty societies promote stewardship of health resources by encouraging guideline-concordant care, thereby limiting inappropriate and obsolete imaging. However, imaging to stage low-risk prostate cancer remains high, as almost half of men with localized prostate cancer undergo wasteful imaging following diagnosis. We employed a theory-based approach, based on current evidence and data on existing practice patterns revealing that providers are the drivers to imaging decisions, to design an intervention to improve guideline -concordant prostate cancer staging imaging across populations. We conceptualized preliminary results using the theoretical domains framework and the behavior change wheel, frameworks used concurrently to investigate physicians′ behaviors and intervention design in various clinical settings. Through these 2 frameworks, we designed a theory-based, physician-focused intervention to efficiently encourage guideline-concordant prostate cancer imaging, prostate cancer imaging stewardship (PCIS). Prostate cancer imaging stewardship consists of interventions (clinical order check, academic detailing, and audit and feedback) implemented at the individual, facility, and system level to enact provider behavior change by enabling facilitators and appealing to physician motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze the association between US urology department Twitter presence and U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) reputation scores, to examine the content, informational value, and intended audience of these platforms, and to identify objectives for Twitter use.Materials and Methods: We identified Twitter accounts for urology departments scored in the 2016-2017 USNWR. Correlation coefficients were calculated between Twitter metrics (number of followers, following, tweets, and Klout influence scores) with USNWR reputation scores. We also performed a detailed content analysis of urology department tweets during a 6-month period to characterize the content. Finally, we distributed a survey to the urology department accounts via Twitter, inquiring who administers the content, and their objectives for Twitter use.Results: Among 42 scored urology departments with Twitter accounts, the median number of followers, following, and tweets were 337, 193, and 115, respectively. All of these Twitter metrics had a statistically significant positive correlation with reputation scores (P <.05). Content analyses revealed that most tweets were about conferences, education, and publications, targeting the general public or urologic community. Survey results revealed that the primary reason for twitter use among urology departments was visibility and reputation, and urologists are considered the most important target audience.Conclusion: There is statistically significant correlation between Twitter activity and USNWR reputation scores for urology departments. Our results suggest that Twitter provides a novel mechanism for urology departments to communicate about academic and educational topics, and social media engagement can enhance reputation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among US men, most new prostate cancer cases are clinically localized and do not require imaging as part of staging workup according to guidelines. Two leading specialty societies promote stewardship of health resources by encouraging guideline-concordant care, thereby limiting inappropriate and obsolete imaging. However, imaging to stage low-risk prostate cancer remains high, as almost half of men with localized prostate cancer undergo wasteful imaging following diagnosis. We employed a theory-based approach, based on current evidence and data on existing practice patterns revealing that providers are the drivers to imaging decisions, to design an intervention to improve guideline -concordant prostate cancer staging imaging across populations. We conceptualized preliminary results using the theoretical domains framework and the behavior change wheel, frameworks used concurrently to investigate physicians' behaviors and intervention design in various clinical settings. Through these 2 frameworks, we designed a theory-based, physician-focused intervention to efficiently encourage guideline-concordant prostate cancer imaging, prostate cancer imaging stewardship (PCIS). Prostate cancer imaging stewardship consists of interventions (clinical order check, academic detailing, and audit and feedback) implemented at the individual, facility, and system level to enact provider behavior change by enabling facilitators and appealing to physician motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: According to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, routine imagining for staging low-risk prostate cancer is not recommended. However, extensive overuse of guideline-discordant imaging continues to persist. Incidental findings are common on imaging and little is known about the optimal management. Rates of incidental findings vs. false positive diagnosis from inappropriate imaging are poorly understood and have yet to be quantified for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.Objective: To determine the frequency of positive radiologic findings in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer during initial staging at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients' medical records from the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System for diagnosis from 2005 to 2015. We reviewed each individual's prebiopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and clinical stage. We also determined if imaging obtained yielded a false positive, incidental finding, or if metastatic disease occurred within the 6 months following initial diagnosis.Results: There were 414 men, who were classified as low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer and underwent inappropriate staging imaging of 4,306 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of these 414 men, 178 (43%) had additional follow-up imaging for positive findings. We calculated an incidental finding rate of 10% and a false positive rate of 38% for patients. Five (1%) patients had metastatic disease.Conclusion: Despite guideline recommendations, imaging overuse remains an issue for low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. The false positive rate found in this analysis is alarmingly high at 38%. This use of scans is burdensome to the healthcare system and patient. This study highlights the frequency of inappropriate imaging and its negative consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers. Methods We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses. Results We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure). Conclusions Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information. Practical implications These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers.Methods: We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses.Results: We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure).Conclusions: Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information.Practical Implications: These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]