Overnight hospitalization after radical prostatectomy: the impact of two clinical pathways on patient satisfaction, length of hospitalization, and morbidity

Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement: A Structured Review

BACKGROUND

The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed-none of which were among the most frequently utilized.

CONCLUSION

Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a "top 5" core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.

Oral oxycodone hydrochloride versus epidural anaesthesia for pain control after radical retropubic prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether combined oral intake of paracetamol (4 x 1 g) + oxycodone hydrochloride (2x10 mg) is adequate and equivalent to epidural anaesthesia (EDA) with respect to postoperative pain control and postoperative mobilization after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty consecutive patients scheduled for RRP were randomized to either: EDA with ropivacaine + paracetamol (4 x 1 g tablet) + injected or oral morphine on demand (EDA group); or infiltration of 25-40 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine into the wound + oxycodone hydrochloride (2 x 10 mg tablet) + paracetamol (4x1 g tablet) + injected or oral morphine on demand (OXY group). The groups were compared with respect to pain control determined by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS), time to free mobilization, hospital stay, complications, operation time and bleeding.

RESULTS

Both analgesic regimens provided satisfactory analgesia, i.e. VAS scores remained significantly below 4 (p<0.0001). The EDA group experienced slightly less pain than the OXY group on the operation day but this was not significant: median VAS scores of 0.7 and 1.8, respectively (p=0.27). Median VAS scores during hospital stay were 1.7 in both treatment groups. VAS scores ranged from 0.1 to 3.3 and from 0.2 to 3.5 in the EDA and OXY groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in postoperative mobilization between the groups (p=0.06). The median duration of hospital stay was 3 nights in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pain control after RRP with oral oxycodone hydrochloride, paracetamol and extra morphine on demand is preferable to EDA when pain control as well as mobilization and costs are taken into account.

Does regional anesthesia improve outcome after surgery?

The benefits and complications associated with regional anesthesia are assessed on the basis of a review of the recent literature. Benefits are separately considered as: (1) effects on hospital discharge; (2) effects on pulmonary function; (3) cardiac benefits; (4) effects on ambulation; (5) effects on metabolic stress responses; and (6) the preemptive effect. Complications reviewed are those of recent interest, and include epidural hematoma in association with anticoagulant therapy, and neural toxicity in association with high-dose local anesthetic.

Prostatectomy patients' postoperative pain assessment in the recovery room

AIM

This paper reports a study to assess the usability and use of different pain assessment tools and to compare patients' and nurses' pain assessments in the recovery room after prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND

Pain assessment is the first step towards providing adequate pain relief but poses problems because of the subjective nature of the pain experience and the lack of quantifiable measurements. Pain tools have been tested in several clinical settings, but not in the recovery room.

METHODS

Data were collected in the recovery room from 45 consecutive patients who had undergone prostatectomy by asking them to evaluate their pain intensity using visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale and verbal expressions. One of two research nurses measured patients' pain at regular intervals and at the same time as the patients. Physiological parameters were also evaluated. Data were analysed as frequencies and percentages. Sum variables were formed and results were analysed using Spearman's rank correlation, Pearson's correlation and with multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients varied in their ability to assess the intensity of their pain using different tools, but assessments were correlated with each other and with nurses' estimations. Nurses and patients obtained similar assessments, but nurses both underestimated and overestimated patients' pain. Patients' verbal assessments varied widely. Patients' and nurses' pain assessments showed no association with patients' pulse or mean arterial blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results, it is not totally clear whether pain tools are usable in the recovery room. This issue calls for further research.

Multimodal analgesia for postoperative pain control

Pain is one of the main postoperative adverse outcomes. Single analgesics, either opioid or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), are not able to provide effective pain relief without side effects such as nausea, vomiting, sedation, or bleeding. A majority of double or single-blind studies investigating the use of NSAIDs and opioid analgesics with or without local anesthetic infiltration showed that patients experience lower pain scores, need fewer analgesics, and have a prolonged time to requiring analgesics after surgery. This review focuses on multimodal analgesia, which is currently recommended for effective postoperative pain control.

Using outcome data and patient satisfaction surveys to develop policies regarding minimum length of hospitalization after radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

Changes in health care economics have prompted new clinical pathways for radical prostatectomy to reduce length of hospitalization after surgery to 1 day. We evaluated satisfaction, outcomes, and short-term morbidity in 187 consecutive patients with overnight hospitalization after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

METHODS

In 1995, we initiated a critical pathway for RRP that included epidural anesthesia with or without spinal anesthesia and postoperative methadone, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen for pain control. Patients were discharged when they were afebrile, tolerating a regular diet, ambulating without assistance, and using oral medications for analgesia. An 18-item satisfaction survey was mailed to each patient 3 weeks after discharge. Responses to the postoperative survey, morbidity, blood loss, and use of transfusions were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 252 patients who underwent RRP, 187 (74. 2%) were discharged 1 day after surgery. The mean age of patients was 61.4 years (range 42 to 73). A pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in addition to the RRP in 32 men (17%). Epidural anesthesia with or without spinal anesthesia was used for all but 3 patients. The mean estimated blood loss was 1166 mL, and 24 patients (12.8%) required transfusion, with a mean of 1.9 U (range 1 to 6) of packed red blood cells. The postoperative complication rate was 11. 8%, of which 2.1% (n = 4) were definitely or probably related to our protocol. These complications included clot retention (n = 2), gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 1), and spinal headache (n = 1). Three of 187 patients were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days but only one (0.5%) required admission because of our protocol. The survey response rate was 91.4%. No patient was dissatisfied with his overall care, and only 10.5% of patients would have preferred to stay in the hospital longer.

CONCLUSIONS

One-day hospitalization after RRP is associated with minimal postoperative morbidity and high patient satisfaction. Similar data are needed for RRP from other centers before policy decisions regarding the length of stay after this procedure are made.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in anaesthesia

In order to preserve the quality of anaesthetic care under cost containment programmes, the concept of value-based anaesthesia was introduced. To achieve this goal, namely, the provision of the best possible care attainable at a reasonable cost, studies are necessary that compare anaesthetic techniques in terms of both quality and costs, e.g. by means of cost-effectiveness analyses.