The impact of the Ontario quality-based procedures funding model on radical prostatectomy outcomes

Nickan Motamedi, Andrew McClure, Nicholas Power, Stephen Pautler, Lilian Gien, Blayne Welk, Jacob McGee
{"title":"The impact of the Ontario quality-based procedures funding model on radical prostatectomy outcomes","authors":"Nickan Motamedi, Andrew McClure, Nicholas Power, Stephen Pautler, Lilian Gien, Blayne Welk, Jacob McGee","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: In 2015, radical prostatectomy (RP) in Ontario transitioned to the quality-based procedures (QBP) funding model, which assigns disbursement from surgical quality indicator (QI) outcome performance. The objective of this study was to assess the QBP QI outcomes before and after implementation of the QBP funding model for RP, and to determine whether changes seen were attributable to the QBP model.\nMethods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study including all men who underwent RP for prostate cancer in Ontario from 2010–2019. We used administrative data from Ontario’s health databases to gather surgical and QI outcome data. Our primary outcomes were the five measurable QBP QIs outlined by the province. We performed a pre- and post-intervention comparison, in addition to an interrupted-time series (ITS) analysis.\nResults: Two of the five QIs improved after implementation of the QBP model (complication rate: 11.89% vs. 9.96%, p<0.001; proportion meeting length of stay target: 78.11% vs. 86.84%, p<0.001). ITS analysis revealed that there was no difference in trend in either outcome between pre- and post-implementation periods (p=0.913 and p=0.249, respectively). Two QIs were worse in the post-implementation period (unplanned visit rate: 23.45% vs. 25%, p=0.015; proportion meeting Wait 2 target: 94.39% vs. 92.88%, p<0.001). ITS revealed a significant trend changes post-implementation (p=0.260 and p=0.272, respectively). There was no difference in reoperation rate (2.84% vs. 2.45%, p=0.107).\nConclusions: The QBP model for RP corresponds with mixed QI changes, but further analysis suggests that these changes were pre-existing trends and not attributable to the model.","PeriodicalId":38001,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In 2015, radical prostatectomy (RP) in Ontario transitioned to the quality-based procedures (QBP) funding model, which assigns disbursement from surgical quality indicator (QI) outcome performance. The objective of this study was to assess the QBP QI outcomes before and after implementation of the QBP funding model for RP, and to determine whether changes seen were attributable to the QBP model. Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study including all men who underwent RP for prostate cancer in Ontario from 2010–2019. We used administrative data from Ontario’s health databases to gather surgical and QI outcome data. Our primary outcomes were the five measurable QBP QIs outlined by the province. We performed a pre- and post-intervention comparison, in addition to an interrupted-time series (ITS) analysis. Results: Two of the five QIs improved after implementation of the QBP model (complication rate: 11.89% vs. 9.96%, p<0.001; proportion meeting length of stay target: 78.11% vs. 86.84%, p<0.001). ITS analysis revealed that there was no difference in trend in either outcome between pre- and post-implementation periods (p=0.913 and p=0.249, respectively). Two QIs were worse in the post-implementation period (unplanned visit rate: 23.45% vs. 25%, p=0.015; proportion meeting Wait 2 target: 94.39% vs. 92.88%, p<0.001). ITS revealed a significant trend changes post-implementation (p=0.260 and p=0.272, respectively). There was no difference in reoperation rate (2.84% vs. 2.45%, p=0.107). Conclusions: The QBP model for RP corresponds with mixed QI changes, but further analysis suggests that these changes were pre-existing trends and not attributable to the model.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安大略省基于质量的手术资助模式对根治性前列腺切除术结果的影响
简介:2015 年,安大略省的根治性前列腺切除术(RP)过渡到了基于质量的手术(QBP)资助模式,该模式根据手术质量指标(QI)结果表现分配拨款。本研究的目的是评估对前列腺切除术实施 QBP 资助模式前后的 QBP QI 结果,并确定 QBP 模式是否带来了变化:我们开展了一项基于人群的回顾性队列研究,研究对象包括 2010-2019 年期间在安大略省接受前列腺癌前列腺电切术的所有男性。我们使用安大略省健康数据库中的管理数据来收集手术和 QI 结果数据。我们的主要结果是该省列出的五个可衡量的 QBP QI。我们进行了干预前和干预后的比较,以及间断时间序列(ITS)分析:结果:实施 QBP 模式后,五项 QI 中的两项得到了改善(并发症发生率 11.89% 对 9.9%):11.89%对9.96%,p<0.001;达到住院时间目标的比例:78.11%对86.84%,p<0.001)。ITS 分析显示,实施前和实施后的结果在趋势上没有差异(分别为 p=0.913 和 p=0.249)。两项质量指标在实施后有所下降(计划外就诊率:23.45% 对 25%,p=0.015;达到 Wait 2 目标的比例:94.39% 对 92.88%,p<0.001)。ITS 在实施后出现了明显的趋势性变化(p=0.260 和 p=0.272)。再手术率没有差异(2.84% vs. 2.45%,p=0.107):RP的QBP模型与混合QI变化相对应,但进一步分析表明,这些变化是之前就存在的趋势,与模型无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Published by the Canadian Urological Association, the Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ) released its first issue in March 2007, and was published four times that year under the guidance of founding editor (Editor Emeritus as of 2012), Dr. Laurence H. Klotz. In 2008, CUAJ became a bimonthly publication. As of 2013, articles have been published monthly, alternating between print and online-only versions (print issues are available in February, April, June, August, October, and December; online-only issues are produced in January, March, May, July, September, and November). In 2017, the journal launched an ahead-of-print publishing strategy, in which accepted manuscripts are published electronically on our website and cited on PubMed ahead of their official issue-based publication date. By significantly shortening the time to article availability, we offer our readers more flexibility in the way they engage with our content: as a continuous stream, or in a monthly “package,” or both. CUAJ covers a broad range of urological topics — oncology, pediatrics, transplantation, endourology, female urology, infertility, and more. We take pride in showcasing the work of some of Canada’s top investigators and providing our readers with the latest relevant evidence-based research, and on being the primary repository for major guidelines and other important practice recommendations. Our long-term vision is to become an essential destination for urology-based research, education, and advocacy for both physicians and patients, and to act as a springboard for discussions within the urologic community.
期刊最新文献
Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-assisted bedside ureteric stent placement 2024 Canadian Urological Association endorsement of an expert report: Kidney involvement in tuberous sclerosis complex Sacral neuromodulation in pediatric refractory bladder and bowel dysfunction Fostering the continued growth of our association On vacation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1