Mp70-19 Urologic Care in the Incarcerated Population: Experience From a Tertiary Care Center

You have accessJournal of UrologyDiversity, Equity & Inclusion: Health Equity & Outcomes III (MP70)1 May 2024MP70-19 UROLOGIC CARE IN THE INCARCERATED POPULATION: EXPERIENCE FROM A TERTIARY CARE CENTER Ryan W. Fogg, Regina Foster, Bridget Kastelberg, Adam P. Klausner, and Sarah C. Krzastek Ryan W. FoggRyan W. Fogg , Regina FosterRegina Foster , Bridget KastelbergBridget Kastelberg , Adam P. KlausnerAdam P. Klausner , and Sarah C. KrzastekSarah C. Krzastek View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008796.84999.75.19AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There are more than one million individuals who are currently incarcerated in the United States. However, access and delivery of urologic care for these individuals is not widely reported. Our health system provides tertiary care services to a high volume of incarcerated individuals within its region. This study describes the delivery of urologic care in the incarcerated individuals at our institution with the goal of improving barriers to care for this high-risk population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a database of all incarcerated individuals presenting to our outpatient urology clinic from 2012-2020. Information including age, race, facility/travel distance, diagnosis, follow-up time, and surgery data were extracted from the medical record. Statistical analyses were performed using logarithmic and linear regression. RESULTS: From the years 2012-2020, a total of 1,235 unique incarcerated individuals were seen for a total of 3,224 visits. Individuals seen in our clinic were 92% male and 55% black. Inmates from a total of 45 correctional facilities were seen with a median travel distance of 64 miles, and ranging from 2 miles to 370 miles (Figure 1). Mean time to follow up was 291 days for all patients. Likelihood of following up, mean follow up time, and number of follow ups were not associated with distance travelled (p>0.05). The most common diagoses seen were BPH/LUTS (17.8%), elevated PSA (9.6%), and hematuria (8.2%). A significant portion of visits were for workup or care of urologic malignancies (23.8%). A total of 34.3% of patients seen were recommended an operative intervention. The rates of surgery cancellations was high with an overall rate of 30.2%. Rate of cancellation did not correlate to distance travelled. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the only reports of urologic care in the incarcerated population and is the largest to date. A majority of incarcerated individuals seen in our clinic were black men, likely owing to the overrepresentation of this population in the prison system. There were high rates of urologic malignancies, need for surgical intervention, and surgical cancellations, reflecting the high-risk nature of this population. Due to these issues, a well-defined infrastructure for care and follow-up of incarcerated individuals is critical for optimization of patient outcomes. Download PPT Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1136 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Ryan W. Fogg More articles by this author Regina Foster More articles by this author Bridget Kastelberg More articles by this author Adam P. Klausner More articles by this author Sarah C. Krzastek More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...