Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urological Care Delivery in the United States.

PURPOSE: We examined changes in urological care delivery due to COVID-19 in the U.S. based on patient, practice, and local/regional demographic and pandemic response features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from the American Urological Association Quality (AQUA) Registry collected from electronic health record systems. Data represented 157 outpatient urological practices and 3,165 providers across 48 U.S. states and territories, including 3,297,721 unique patients, 12,488,831 total outpatient visits and 2,194,456 procedures. The primary outcome measure was the number of outpatient visits and procedures performed (inpatient or outpatient) per practice per week, measured from January 2019 to February 2021. RESULTS: We found large (>50%) declines in outpatient visits from March 2020 to April 2020 across patient demographic groups and states, regardless of timing of state stay-at-home orders. Nonurgent outpatient visits decreased more across various nonurgent procedures (49%-59%) than for procedures performed for potentially urgent diagnoses (38%-52%); surgical procedures for nonurgent conditions also decreased more (43%-79%) than those for potentially urgent conditions (43%-53%). African American patients had similar decreases in outpatient visits compared with Asians and Caucasians, but also slower recoveries back to baseline. Medicare-insured patients had the steepest declines (55%), while those on Medicaid and government insurance had the lowest percentage of recovery to baseline (73% and 69%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence on the decline in urological care across demographic groups and practice settings, and demonstrates a differential impact on the utilization of urological health services by demographics and procedure type.

A lasting impression: telemedicine in urogynecology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Amidst the worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a new medical landscape revolving around telemedicine has arisen. The purpose of this review is to describe and analyze current urogynecologic guidelines for optimizing usage of telemedicine when treating women with pelvic floor disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Women managed by urogynecologists are on average older, and hence more likely to have comorbidities that make them susceptible to developing coronavirus disease 2019 with severe symptoms. Telemedicine is key in minimizing exposure without sacrificing treatments and quality of life. Recent studies published prior to the pandemic helped set the stage for successful components of virtual care. Nonsurgical options are crucial to beginning a treatment plan while elective surgeries are still restricted in many hospitals. Medication management and innovative technology, such as smart telephone applications, play a prominent role. The comprehensive literature review discussed here describes the degree of evidence supporting each management option, while also noting the limitations of telemedicine. SUMMARY: Telemedicine has opened a new door for the field of urogynecology allowing for continued safe, evidence-based care. The pandemic culture has tipped the balance away from surgery and toward nonsurgical treatments while attempting not to sacrifice outcomes or quality of care.

A Critical Appraisal of the American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures (MeNTS) Scoring System, Urology Consensus Recommendations and Individual Surgeon Case Prioritization for Resumption of Elective Urological Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Resumption of elective urology cases postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires a systematic approach to case prioritization, which may be based on detailed cross-specialty questionnaires, specialty specific published expert opinion or by individual (operating) surgeon review. We evaluated whether each of these systems effectively stratifies cases and for agreement between approaches in order to inform departmental policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated triage of elective cases postponed within our department due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 9, 2020 to May 22, 2020) using questionnaire based surgical prioritization (American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures [MeNTS] instrument), consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization (based on published urological recommendations) and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scoring (developed and managed within our department). Lower scores represented greater urgency. MeNTS scores were compared across consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores. RESULTS: A total of 204 cases were evaluated. Median MeNTS score was 50 (IQR 44, 55), and mean consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores were 2.6±0.6 and 2.2±0.8, respectively. Median MeNTS scores were 52 (46.5, 57.5), 50 (44.5, 54.5) and 48 (43.5, 54) for individual surgeon based surgical prioritization priority 1, 2 and 3 cases (p=0.129), and 55 (51.5, 57), 47.5 (42, 56) and 49 (44, 54) for consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization priority scores 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.002). There was none to slight agreement between consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores (Kappa 0.131, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaire based, expert opinion based and individual surgeon based approaches to case prioritization result in significantly different case prioritization. Questionnaire based surgical prioritization did not meaningfully stratify urological cases, and consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization frequently disagreed. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems should be considered in future disaster planning scenarios.

Implementation of a Ureteric Colic Telemedicine Service: A Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a telemedicine service for ureteric colic patients in reducing the number of unnecessary face-to-face consultations and shortening waiting time for appointments. METHODS: A telemedicine workflow was implemented as a quality improvement study using the Plan-Do-Study-Act method. All patients presenting with ureteric colic without high-risk features of fever, severe pain, and hydronephrosis, were recruited, and face-to-face appointments to review scan results were replaced with phone consultations. Data were prospectively collected over 3 years (January 2017 to December 2019). Patient outcomes including the reduction in face-to-face review visits, time to review, reattendance and intervention rates, were tracked in an interrupted time-series analysis, and qualitative feedback was obtained from patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Around 53.2% of patients presenting with ureteric colic were recruited into the telemedicine workflow. A total of 465 patients (46.2%) had normal scan results and 250 patients (24.9%) did not attend their scan appointments, hence reducing the number of face-to-face consultations by 71.1%. A total of 230 patients (22.9%) required subsequent follow-up with urology, while 61 patients (6.1%) were referred to other specialties. Mean (SD) time to review was 30.0 (6.2) days, 6-month intervention rate was 3.4% (n = 34) and unplanned reattendance rate was 3.2% (n = 32). Around 93.1% of patients reported satisfaction with the service. CONCLUSION: The ureteric colic telemedicine service successfully and sustainably reduced the number of face-to-face consultations and time to review without compromising on patient safety. The availability of this telemedicine service has become even more important in helping us provide care to patients with ureteric colic in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Improving the Residency Program Virtual Open House Experience: A Survey of Urology Applicants.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perception and value of virtual open houses for urology applicants in the COVID-19 era, since students can no longer attend subinternships and all interviews will be conducted virtually. METHODS: A Twitter survey was sent to 230 likely urology applicants connected through the UroResidency platform. It asked about the relative value of components of the virtual open house and areas for suggested improvement. RESULTS: Seventy responded. Most potential applicants valued virtual open houses that discussed strengths and weaknesses of the program, had time to interact directly with the faculty, and included resident led presentations or discussions. Most agreed programs needed to have more direct time with residents to better understand the culture of the program. CONCLUSION: In this first virtual interview season for urology, likely applicants generally engage in virtual open houses and strongly prefer time to interact directly with residents to assess the program culture.

Trends in urologic oncology clinical practice and medical education under COVID-19 pandemic: An international survey of senior clinical and academic urologists.

OBJECTIVE: Ad-hoc guidelines for managing the COVID-19 pandemic are published worldwide. We investigated international applications of such policies in the urologic-oncology community. METHODS: A 20-item survey was e-mailed via SurveyMonkey to 100 international senior urologic-oncology surgeons. Leaders' policies regarding clinical/surgical management and medical education were surveyed probing demographics, affiliations, urologic-oncologic areas of interest, and current transportation restrictions. Data on COVID-19 burden were retrieved from the ECDC. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric tests (SPSS v.25.0, IBM). RESULTS: Of 100 leaders from 17 countries, 63 responded to our survey, with 58 (92%) reporting university and/or cancer-center affiliations. Policies on new-patient visits remained mostly unchanged, while follow-up visits for low-risk diseases were mostly postponed, for example, 83.3% for small renal mass (SRM). Radical prostatectomy was delayed in 76.2% of cases, while maintaining scheduled timing for radical cystectomy (71.7%). Delays were longer in Europe than in the Americas for kidney cancer (SRM follow-up, P = 0.014), prostate cancer (new visits, P = 0.003), and intravesical therapy for intermediate-risk bladder cancer (P = 0.043). In Europe, COVID-19 burden correlated with policy adaptation, for example, nephrectomy delays for T2 disease (r = 0.5, P =0.005). Regarding education policies, trainees' medical education was mainly unchanged, whereas senior urologists' planned attendance at professional meetings dropped from 6 (IQR 1-11) to 2 (IQR 0-5) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Under COVID-19, senior urologic-oncology surgeons worldwide apply risk-stratified approaches to timing of clinical and surgical schedules. Policies regarding trainee education were not significantly affected. We suggest establishment of an international consortium to create a directive for coping with such future challenges to global healthcare.

Telemedicine and smart working: Spanish adaptation of the European Association of Urology recommendations. / Telemedicina y trabajo inteligente: adaptación al español de las recomendaciones de la Asociación Europea de Urología.

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine provides remote clinical support through technology tools. It can facilitate medical care delivery while reducing unnecessary office visits. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, where teleconsultations play a crucial role. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical recommendations for the effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Medline until April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to «telemedicine¼ and «smart working¼ that could provide valuable information. RESULTS: Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunication tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a working approach that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful and fundamental tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be even more in the future. It is time for us to officially give telemedicine the place it deserves in clinical practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and familiarize with all the tools and possible strategies for its optimal implementation. We must guarantee that the quality of care received by patients and perceived by them and their families is of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates remote specialized urological clinical support and solves problems caused by limited patient mobility or transfer, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics and is useful to reduce the risk of COVID-19 viral transmission.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Urology Surgery during Global Pandemic COVID19.

Known laparoscopic and robotic assisted approaches and techniques for the surgical management of urological malignant and benign diseases are commonly used around the World. During the global pandemic COVID19, urology surgeons had to reorganize their daily surgical practice. A concern with the use of minimally invasive techniques arose due to a proposed risk of viral transmission of the coronavirus disease with the creation of pneumoperitoneum. Due to this, we reviewed the literature to evaluate the use of laparoscopy and robotics during the pandemic COVID19. A literature review of viral transmission in surgery and of the available literature regarding the transmission of the COVID19 virus was performed up to April 30, 2020. We additionally reviewed surgical society guidelines and recommendations regarding surgery during this pandemic. Few studies have been performed on viral transmission during surgery. No study has been made regarding this area during minimally invasive urology cases. To date there is no study that demonstrates or can suggest the ability for a virus to be transmitted during surgical treatment whether open, laparoscopic or robotic. There is no society consensus on restricting laparoscopic or robotic surgery. However, there is expert consensus on modification of standard practices to minimize any risk of transmission. During the pandemic COVID19 we recommend the use of specific personal protective equipment for the surgeon, anesthesiologist and nursing staff in the operating room. Modifications of standard practices during minimally invasive surgery such as using lowest intra-abdominal pressures possible, controlled smoke evacuation systems, and minimizing energy device usage are recommended.

Capturing the Perspective of Prospective Urology Applicants: Impacts of COVID-19 on Medical Education.

OBJECTIVE: To capture the perspective of prospective urology applicants experiencing unique challenges in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous survey was distributed online, assessing the impact of COVID-19 on a large sample of US medical students planning to apply to urology residencies. Themes of (1) specialty discernment, (2) alterations to medical education, and (3) the residency application process were explored. RESULTS: A total of 238 medical students, 87% third and fourth years, responded to the survey. While 85% indicated that the pandemic had not deterred their specialty choice, they noted substantial impacts on education, including 82% reporting decreased exposure to urology. Nearly half of students reported changes to required rotations and 35% reported changes to urology-specific rotations at their home institutions. Students shared concerns about suspending in-person experiences, including the impact on letters of recommendation (68% "very concerned) and program choice (73% "very concerned"). Looking to the possibility of virtual interactions, students identified the importance of small group and one-on-one communication with residents (83% "very important") and opportunities to learn about hospital facilities (72% "very important"). CONCLUSION: Despite the impacts of COVID-19 on medical education, prospective urology applicants appear to remain confident in their specialty choice. Students' biggest concerns involve disruption of away rotations, including impacts on obtaining letters of recommendation and choosing a residency program.

Deferring Elective Urologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspective of urological patients on the possibility to defer elective surgery due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. METHODS: All patients scheduled for elective urological procedures for malignant or benign diseases at 2 high-volume centers were administered a questionnaire, through structured telephone interviews, between April 24 and 27, 2020. The questionnaire included 3 questions: (1) In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, would you defer the planned surgical intervention? (2) If yes, when would you be willing to undergo surgery? (3) What do you consider potentially more harmful for your health: the risk of contracting COVID-19 during hospitalization or the potential consequences of delaying surgical treatment? RESULTS: Overall, 332 patients were included (51.5% and 48.5% in the oncology and benign groups, respectively). Of these, 47.9% patients would have deferred the planned intervention (33.3% vs 63.4%; P < .001), while the proportion of patients who would have preferred to delay surgery for more than 6 months was comparable between the groups (87% vs 80%). These answers were influenced by patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (in the Oncology group) and by the underlying urological condition (in the benign group). Finally, 182 (54.8%) patients considered the risk of COVID-19 potentially more harmful than the risk of delaying surgery (37% vs 73%; P < .001). This answer was driven by patient age and the underlying disease in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the importance of shared decision-making before urological surgery, leveraging patients' values and expectations to refine the paradigm of evidence-based medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Urological service provision during the COVID-19 period: the experience from an Irish tertiary centre.

PURPOSE: Urological service provision has changed dramatically with the advent of the SARS-CoV-2, necessitating restructuring and reorganization. The aim of this study was to review the reorganization of our unit, map the change in volume of departmental activities and discuss potential solutions. METHODS: Departmental activities over the months of April and May 2020 and 2019 were analysed. Details of admissions, operations, diagnostic procedures, outpatient reviews, morbidities and mortalities were recorded. Operations were performed on two sites, with elective operation transferred to an offsite, COVID-free hospital. RESULTS: Seventy-four emergency operations were performed onsite, with 85 elective operations outsourced. A total of 159 operations were performed, compared with 280 in the same period in 2019. Five (5.0%) of 101 admitted patients to the COVID hospital contracted COVID-19. No patients outsourced to the COVID-free hospital were infected there. Outpatient referrals to urology service decreased from 928 to 481. There was a 66% decrease in new cancer diagnoses. A virtual review clinic was established, with remaining outpatients reviewed through a telephone clinic platform. CONCLUSION: Compared with 2019, we performed fewer operations and outpatient procedures, had fewer admissions and diagnosed fewer patients with new cancers. However, outsourcing elective operation to designated non-COVID hospitals prevented the infection of any patient with COVID-19 in the post-operative period. The use of virtual clinic and telephone clinic has had some success in replacing traditional outpatient visits. The overall significant decrease in operative volume will likely precipitate a mismatch between demand and service provision in the coming months, unless capacity is increased.

Emergency Surgery in Urology during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Proposal: To highlight the indications for emergency surgery during the 2019 Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) that support recommendations published in mid-March 2020 by the American Confederation of Urology on its website. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliographic search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane Library to perform a non-systematic review, using key words: Urology, Emergency and COVID-19, to determine recommendations for patients that should receive emergency care due to urological pathology. RESULTS: The main recommendations and protocols in the management of different urological emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic are reviewed and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: We are living a new condition with the COVID-19 pandemic, which obliges urologists to conform to the guidelines that appear on a daily basis formulated by multidisciplinary surgical groups to manage urological emergencies. Consequently, in this time of health crisis, we must adapt to the resources available, implementing all biosecurity measures to protect patients and all health personnel who are in charge of patient management.

A Systematic Review on Guidelines and Recommendations for Urology Standard of Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. OBJECTIVE: To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.

Forecasting the Future of Urology Practice: A Comprehensive Review of the Recommendations by International and European Associations on Priority Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The unprecedented health care scenario caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has revolutionized urology practice worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To review the recommendations by the international and European national urological associations/societies (UASs) on prioritization strategies for both oncological and nononcological procedures released during the current emergency scenario. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Each UAS official website was searched between April 8 and 18, 2020, to retrieve any document, publication, or position paper on prioritization strategies regarding both diagnostic and therapeutic urological procedures, and any recommendations on the use of telemedicine and minimally invasive surgery. We collected detailed information on all urological procedures, stratified by disease, priority (higher vs lower), and patient setting (outpatient vs inpatient). Then, we critically discussed the implications of such recommendations for urology practice in both the forthcoming "adaptive" and the future "chronic" phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, we analyzed the recommendations from 13 UASs, of which four were international (American Urological Association, Confederation Americana de Urologia, European Association of Urology, and Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand) and nine national (from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the UK). In the outpatient setting, the procedures that are likely to impact the future burden of urologists' workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finally, some UASs recommended special precautions to perform minimally invasive surgery, while others outlined the potential role of telemedicine to optimize resources in the current and future scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: The expected changes will put significant strain on urological units worldwide regarding the overall workload of urologists, internal logistics, inflow of surgical patients, and waiting lists. In light of these predictions, urologists should strive to leverage this emergency period to reshape their role in the future. PATIENT SUMMARY: Overall, there was a large consensus among different urological associations/societies regarding the prioritization of most urological procedures, including those in the outpatient setting, urological emergencies, and many inpatient surgeries for both oncological and nononcological conditions. On the contrary, some differences were found regarding specific cancer surgeries (ie, radical cystectomy for higher-risk bladder cancer and nephrectomy for larger organ-confined renal masses), potentially due to different prioritization criteria and/or health care contexts. In the future, the outpatient procedures that are likely to impact the burden of urologists' workload most are prostate biopsies and elective procedures for benign conditions. In the inpatient setting, the most relevant contributors to this burden are represented by elective surgeries for lower-risk prostate and renal cancers, nonobstructing stone disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Urologic oncology surgery during COVID-19: a rapid review of current triage guidance documents.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic placed urologic surgeons, and especially urologic oncologists, in an unprecedented situation. Providers and healthcare systems were forced to rapidly create triage schemas in order to preserve resources and reduce potential viral transmission while continuing to provide care for patients. We reviewed United States and international triage proposals from professional societies, peer-reviewed publications, and publicly available institutional guidelines to identify common themes and critical differences. To date, there are varying levels of agreement on the optimal triaging of urologic oncology cases. As the need to preserve resources and prevent viral transmission grows, prioritizing only high priority surgical cases is paramount. A similar approach to prioritization will also be needed as nonemergent cases are allowed to proceed in the coming weeks. While these decisions will often be made on a case-by-case basis, more nuanced surgeon-driven consensus guidelines are needed for the near future.

Changes in Urology After the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world. Urology needs to overcome these challenges. Our duty is to provide care under any circumstances and our privilege is to re-examine and advance our field. The use of novel communication and health technologies will ensure safety while maintaining high-quality care.