Current State of Advanced Practice Providers in Urological Practice.

INTRODUCTION: This document provides an update to the 2015 consensus statement with new content on inpatient utilization, procedural data, and compensation. The full document is available on the American Urological Association (AUA) website (https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/guidelines/current-state-of-advanced-practice-providers-in-urologic-practice). This document was created by an ad-hoc group of urological providers formed by the AUA board of directors. METHODS: A workforce shortage of 65,000 physicians is projected by the year 2025. In 2018, there were 3.89 urologists per capita, which is amongst the most severe specialty shortages. Urology has the second oldest surgical subspecialty workforce with an average age of 52.5 years. According to the 2018 census, 72.5% of urologists used an advanced practice provider (APP) in their practice, and APPs accounted for 41% of a medical doctor/doctor of osteopathy full-time equivalent. The AUA endorses the use of APPs in the care of patients through a formally defined, supervised role with a board certified urologist under the auspices of applicable state law. This physician-led, team-based approach provides the highest quality urological care. RESULTS: Urologists work with APPs frequently, but many may not know the most efficient way to incorporate them into their practice. This document examines APP integration from a regulatory and practice management approach, as well as provides information on inpatient utilization, procedural data, and compensation. CONCLUSIONS: This document supports the AUA's policy statement that in a team-based approach with a board certified urologist in a supervisory role, APPs contribute to the care of the patient with genitourinary disease and, therefore, encourages the proper use of APPs.

Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.

A Multicenter Study Evaluating the Risk Factors and Outcomes of Repeat Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK), currently the most common procedure for managing corneal endothelial dysfunction, may be repeated following DSEK failure from a variety of causes. This multicenter study reports the risk factors and outcomes of repeat DSEK. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved multicenter retrospective chart review of patients who underwent repeat DSEK. Twelve surgeons from 5 Midwest academic centers and 3 private practice groups participated. The Eversight Eye Bank provided clinical indication and donor graft data. We also assessed the role of the learning curve by comparing cohorts from the first and second 5-year periods. RESULTS: A total of 121 eyes from 121 patients who underwent repeat DSEK were identified. The average age of the patients was 70 ± 12 years. The most common indication for repeat DSEK was late endothelial graft failure without rejection (58%, N = 63). Average preoperative and 12-month postoperative repeat DSEK corrected distance visual acuities were 20/694 and 20/89, respectively. Visual acuity outcomes, endothelial cell density, and cell loss did not significantly vary between the 2 cohorts. Initial graft rebubble rates for the first and second cohorts were 51% and 25%. The presence of glaucoma, prior glaucoma surgery, or a history of penetrating (full thickness) keratoplasty did not significantly affect visual outcomes. The median, mean, and range of intraocular pressures before repeat DSEK were 15.0, 15.7, and 6 to 37 mm Hg, respectively. Patients with higher intraocular pressures before repeat DSEK had improved postoperative corrected distance visual acuities. CONCLUSIONS: Repeating DSEK improves vision following failed or decompensated DSEK surgery. Higher preoperative repeat DSEK IOPs were associated with improved visual outcomes, and initial graft rebubble rates, which decreased over time, were likely due to surgeon experience.

AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We summarize the available data about the clinical and economic effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, and provide practical recommendations for its use in the screening, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: At this time the data support the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. The data regarding its usefulness for initial biopsy suggest a possible role for magnetic resonance imaging in some circumstances. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although it adds cost to the management of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging offers superior anatomic detail, and the ability to evaluate cellular density based on water diffusion and blood flow based on contrast enhancement. Imaging targeted biopsy may increase the diagnosis of clinically significant cancers by identifying specific lesions not visible on conventional ultrasound. The clinical indications for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving.

Pediatric interventional radiology clinic - how are we doing?

BACKGROUND: Development of a pediatric interventional radiology clinic is a necessary component of providing a pediatric interventional radiology service. Patient satisfaction is important when providing efficient, high-quality care. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the care provided by a pediatric interventional radiology clinic from the perspective of efficiency and parent satisfaction, so as to identify areas for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective study was both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative component measured clinic efficiency (waiting times, duration of clinic visit, nurse/physician time allocation and assessments performed; n = 91). The qualitative component assessed parental satisfaction with their experience with the pediatric interventional radiology clinic, using a questionnaire (5-point Likert scale) and optional free text section for feedback (n = 80). Questions explored the family's perception of relevance of information provided, consent process and overall satisfaction with their pediatric interventional radiology clinic experience. RESULTS: Families waited a mean of 11 and 10 min to meet the physician and nurse, respectively. Nurses and physicians spent a mean of 28 and 21 min with the families, respectively. The average duration of the pediatric interventional radiology clinic consultation was 56 min. Of 80 survey participants, 83% were satisfied with their experience and 94% said they believed providing consent before the day of the procedure was helpful. Only 5% of respondents were not satisfied with the time-efficiency of the interventional radiology clinic. CONCLUSION: Results show the majority of patients/parents are very satisfied with the pediatric interventional radiology clinic visit. The efficiency of the pediatric interventional radiology clinic is satisfactory; however, adherence to stricter scheduling can be improved.