Nickan Motamedi, Andrew McClure, Nicholas Power, Stephen Pautler, Lilian Gien, Blayne Welk, Jacob McGee
{"title":"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","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":"131 39","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"131 39\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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}
The impact of the Ontario quality-based procedures funding model on radical prostatectomy outcomes
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.
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.