Technology Diffusion and Prostate Cancer Quality of Care - 25/10/14

Abstract |
Objective |
To evaluate the association of technological capacity with prostate cancer quality of care. Technological capacity was conceptualized as a market's ability to provide prostate cancer treatment with new technology, including robotic prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).
Methods |
In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009 to identify men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (n = 46,274). We measured technological capacity as the number of providers performing robotic prostatectomy or IMRT per population in a health care market. We used multilevel logistic regression analysis to assess the association of technological capacity with receiving quality care according to a set of nationally endorsed quality measures, while adjusting for patient and market characteristics.
Results |
Overall, our findings were mixed with only subtle differences in quality of care comparing high-tech with low-tech markets. High robotic prostatectomy capacity was associated with better adherence to some quality measures, such as avoiding unnecessary bone scans (79.8% vs 73.0%; P = .003) and having follow-up with urologists (67.7% vs 62.6%; P = .023). However, for most measures, neither high robotic prostatectomy nor high-IMRT capacity was associated with significant increases in adherence rates. In fact, for 1 measure (treatment by a high-volume provider), high-IMRT capacity was associated with lower performance (23.4% vs 28.5%; P <.001).
Conclusion |
Our findings suggest that new technology is not clearly associated with higher quality of care. To improve quality, more specific efforts will be needed.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Financial Disclosure: Ted A. Skolarus is a paid consultant for ArborMetrix, Inc. The remaining authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. |
|
| Funding Support: Florian R. Schroeck is supported in part by a grant T32 DK07782 from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and by postdoctoral fellowship PF-12-118-01-CPPB from the American Cancer Society. Bruce L. Jacobs is supported in part by grant KL2 TR000146 from the National Institutes of Health. Brent K. Hollenbeck is supported in part by research scholar grant RSGI-13-323-01-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society. |
|
| The views expressed in this article do not reflect the views of the federal government. |
Vol 84 - N° 5
P. 1066-1072 - novembre 2014 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
