Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety II (MP33)1 May 2024MP33-10 IDENTIFYING TARGETS FOR PREVENTABLE POST-PROSTATECTOMY READMISSION VIA A NOVEL QUALITATIVE APPROACH Patrick Lewicki, Kandace Ward, Mary Nowlin, Corinne Labardee, Anna Johnson, Sabrina Noyes, Adam Gadzinski, Richard Sarle, Brian R. Lane, Kurshid Ghani, Andrew Krumm, Alice Semerjian, Kevin B. Ginsburg, Tudor Borza, and for the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patrick LewickiPatrick Lewicki , Kandace WardKandace Ward , Mary NowlinMary Nowlin , Corinne LabardeeCorinne Labardee , Anna JohnsonAnna Johnson , Sabrina NoyesSabrina Noyes , Adam GadzinskiAdam Gadzinski , Richard SarleRichard Sarle , Brian R. LaneBrian R. Lane , Kurshid GhaniKurshid Ghani , Andrew KrummAndrew Krumm , Alice SemerjianAlice Semerjian , Kevin B. GinsburgKevin B. Ginsburg , Tudor BorzaTudor Borza , and for the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009520.30626.80.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Post-operative readmissions are an important target for quality improvement. Implementation of readmission reduction interventions requires collaboration across the spectrum of stakeholders, representing significant logistical demand. Using a focus group approach at the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC)-wide Meeting, we leveraged experience with a Lean framework to identify drivers, interventions, and implementation approaches for reducing post-radical prostatectomy (RP) readmission. METHODS: MUSIC Collaborative-wide Meeting attendees self-selected to one of 12 focus groups. A brief presentation on post-RP readmission and the results of Lean evaluations at two MUSIC practices was shown. Within groups, attendees identified potential interventions for reducing readmission and key stakeholders for implementation and sustainment. Groups reported to the larger audience for discussion and elaboration. Input was recorded and then coded for emerging themes. RESULTS: 130 attendees representing 35 urology practices and 32 hospitals participated in the focus groups, including 45 urologists, 32 practice administrators/data abstractors, 18 urology trainees, 5 advanced practice providers, 4 nurses and 3 patient advocates. Each group identified a breadth of post-RP readmission drivers, interventions, and implementation strategies. All groups noted that a significant number of readmissions were preventable. Six primary themes affecting preventable readmissions emerged: patient education, non-urologist provider education, care team fragmentation, resource constraints, provider knowledge gaps, and patient medical optimization. Patient education was overwhelmingly cited as a primary target. Components of this included consistent messaging, complete information (e.g., expected vs. concerning symptoms), volume and timing of patient instruction, and multi-medium information (written, oral, video). CONCLUSIONS: We present an efficient alternative to traditional qualitative methods, overcoming logistical barriers around stakeholder engagement to identify targets for reducing post-RP readmission. Patient education emerged as a primary target for preventable readmission. Source of Funding: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e564 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Patrick Lewicki More articles by this author Kandace Ward More articles by this author Mary Nowlin More articles by this author Corinne Labardee More articles by this author Anna Johnson More articles by this author Sabrina Noyes More articles by this author Adam Gadzinski More articles by this author Richard Sarle More articles by this author Brian R. Lane More articles by this author Kurshid Ghani More articles by this author Andrew Krumm More articles by this author Alice Semerjian More articles by this author Kevin B. Ginsburg More articles by this author Tudor Borza More articles by this author for the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Lewicki et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: