Urinary Retention Evaluation and Catheterization Algorithm for Adult Inpatients.

Importance: Acute urinary retention (UR) is common, yet variations in diagnosis and management can lead to inappropriate catheterization and harm. Objective: To develop an algorithm for screening and management of UR among adult inpatients. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this mixed-methods study using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and qualitative interviews, an 11-member multidisciplinary expert panel of nurses and physicians from across the US used a formal multi-round process from March to May 2015 to rate 107 clinical scenarios involving diagnosis and management of adult UR in postoperative and medical inpatients. The panel ratings informed the first algorithm draft. Semistructured interviews were conducted from October 2020 to May 2021 with 33 frontline clinicians-nurses and surgeons from 5 Michigan hospitals-to gather feedback and inform algorithm refinements. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists categorized scenarios assessing when to use bladder scanners, catheterization at various scanned bladder volumes, and choice of catheterization modalities as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Next, qualitative methods were used to understand the perceived need, usability, and potential algorithm uses. Results: The 11-member expert panel (10 men and 1 woman) used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop a UR algorithm including the following: (1) bladder scanners were preferred over catheterization for UR diagnosis in symptomatic patients or starting as soon as 3 hours since last void if asymptomatic, (2) bladder scanner volumes appropriate to prompt catheterization were 300 mL or greater in symptomatic patients and 500 mL or greater in asymptomatic patients, and (3) intermittent was preferred to indwelling catheterization for managing lower bladder volumes. Interview findings were organized into 3 domains (perceived need, feedback on algorithm, and implementation suggestions). The 33 frontline clinicians (9 men and 24 women) who reviewed the algorithm reported that an evidence-based protocol (1) was needed and could be helpful to clinicians, (2) should be simple and graphically appealing to improve rapid clinician review, and (3) should be integrated within the electronic medical record and prominently displayed in hospital units to increase awareness. The draft algorithm was iteratively refined based on stakeholder feedback. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study using a systematic, multidisciplinary, evidence- and expert opinion-based approach, a UR evaluation and catheterization algorithm was developed to improve patient safety by increasing appropriate use of bladder scanners and catheterization. This algorithm addresses the need for practical guidance to manage UR among adult inpatients.

Attitudes and barriers toward video visits in surgical care: Insights from a nationwide survey among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons rapidly adopted video visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, video visit use among surgeons has significantly declined, pointing to the need to better understand current attitudes and barriers to their use in surgical care. METHODS: From August 2022 to March 2023, a nationwide survey was conducted among practicing surgeons in 6 specialties. The survey included multiple-choice and free-response questions based on an implementation determinants framework, covering demographics, provider, patient, and organizational factors. RESULTS: A total of 170 surgeons responded (24% response rate). Overall, 67% of surgeons said their practice lacked motivation for video visit implementation. Additionally, 69% disagreed with using video visits as the sole means for preoperative surgical consultation, even with relevant medical history, labs, and imaging. Nearly 43% cited the need for a physical examination, whereas 58% of surgeons said video visits carried a greater malpractice risk than in-person visits. Other barriers included technological limitations, billing, and care quality concerns. Nevertheless, 41% agreed that video visits could improve outcomes for some patients, and 60% expressed openness to using video visits exclusively for postoperative consultations in uncomplicated surgeries. CONCLUSION: Surgeons recognize the potential benefits of video visits for certain patients. However, perceived barriers include the need for a physical examination, technological limitations, care quality concerns, and malpractice risks.

Hormonal Therapy and Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: 5-Year Outcomes From a Trial Evaluating Combined Androgen Blockade With 5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitors as an Alternative to Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Agonists.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that for men undergoing combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer, substitution of LHRH-agonists with 5-α- reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) led to improved preservation of 6-month hormonal quality of life (hQOL). With longer term follow-up, we evaluated disease control. METHODS: In this non-randomized trial, men with unfavorable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer, aged ≥70 years or with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, were treated with RT (78-79.2 Gy in 39-44 fractions) and either oral ADT (oADT; 5-ARI with antiandrogen) or standard of care ADT (SOC; leuprolide with antiandrogen) for up to 28 months. The primary endpoint was EPIC hQOL; secondary endpoints included biochemical control and survival as well as changes in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, 70 men were enrolled (40 in oADT; 30 in SOC). Median follow-up was 65 months [IQR 36-94]. Five-year freedom from biochemical failure for oADT and SOC was 89% versus 86%, disease free survival was 62% versus 69%, cancer-specific survival was 100% versus 96%, and overall survival was 70% versus 81% (all P>.1). Testosterone (2 mo through 3 yr) and hemoglobin levels (2 mo through 2 yr) were higher, and cholesterol levels (1 yr) were lower in the oADT groups (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this non-randomized study, men treated with combined RT and oADT had better preservation of hQOL and comparable 5-year disease outcomes to men treated with SOC. Eugonadal testosterone with this approach may yield measurable benefits in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels.

Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

Utilization and Timing of Cystoscopy for Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences between urologists and advanced practice providers (APPs) in the utilization of cystoscopy for hematuria. METHODS: We identified patients initially evaluated for hematuria by a urologist or urology APP between 2015 and 2020 in the MarketScan Research Databases. We determined whether they received a cystoscopy within 6 months of their urology visit and the number of days until cystoscopy. We used multivariable regression to analyze the association between these outcomes and whether the urology clinician was an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), physician assistant (PA), or urologist. RESULTS: We identified 34,470 patients with microscopic hematuria and 17,328 patients with gross hematuria. Patients evaluated by urologists more often received a same-day cystoscopy than those evaluated by APPs (13% vs 5.8%). The odds that patients evaluated for microscopic and gross hematuria received a cystoscopy were 46.2% and 26.2% lower, respectively, if they were evaluated by an APRN vs a urologist. Patients seeing an APRN for microscopic and gross hematuria also waited approximately 7 and 14 days longer for their cystoscopy, respectively. No differences were observed for patients evaluated by PAs vs urologists. CONCLUSION: Patients evaluated for hematuria by an APRN were less likely to receive a cystoscopy and had a longer wait until the procedure compared to those evaluated by a urologist; however, no differences were observed between PAs and urologists. Better understanding APP integration into urology clinics is warranted.

Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS: Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Determinants of Bone-Modifying Agent Prescribing for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in a National Health Care Delivery System.

PURPOSE: Despite guidelines recommending bone-modifying agents (BMAs) to decrease skeletal-related events (SREs) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), BMAs are underutilized. In this retrospective cohort study, we report the factors associated with BMA use in a national health care delivery system. METHODS: We used the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to identify men with mCRPC between 2010 and 2017. BMA prescribing frequency was evaluated, and the association between patient- and disease-specific factors with BMA use was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 3,980 men identified with mCRPC (mean age 73.5 years, 29% Black), 47% received a BMA; median time to BMA from start of mCRPC treatment was 102 days. Factors associated with BMA use included previous BMA use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.81 [95% CI, 6.48 to 9.47]), diagnosis code for bone metastases (aOR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.46]), and concomitant corticosteroid use (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.29 to 1.82]). Decreased BMA use was associated with advancing age (aOR, 0.85 per 10 years [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.92]), Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 (aOR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93]), Black race (aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98]), and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; aOR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.11 to 0.32] for eGFR 0-29 mL/minutes; aOR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.91] for 30-59 mL/minutes). CONCLUSION: Patients who are older, Black, or have more comorbidities are less likely to receive guideline concordant care to prevent SREs. These observations highlight the unique challenges of caring for patients with mCRPC and the need for future studies to increase BMA use in these populations.

National Long-term Survival Estimates After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine survival and disease control outcomes, including metastasis-related survival outcomes, in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005 to 2015 with follow-up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic prostate cancer. We estimated overall survival from time of surgery, time of BCR, and time of first metastasis using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and prostate-cancer-specific survival from various time points using cumulative incidence considering competing risk of death. RESULTS: Of 21,992 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, we identified 5951 (27%) who developed BCR. Of men with BCR, 677 (11%) developed metastases. We estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of BCR and metastases after BCR were 28% and 20%, respectively. Median overall survival after BCR was 14years, with 10-year survival of 70%. From the time of metastasis, median overall survival approached 7years, with 10-year overall survival of 34%. Prostate cancer-specific survival for the entire cohort at 10years was 94%. CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary national cohort, survival for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is longer than historical cohorts. When counseling patients and designing clinical studies, these updated estimates may serve as more reliable reflections of current outcomes.

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence. RESULTS: The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

Industry Payments for Vibegron and Prescribing Patterns Among Urologic Clinicians.

This cross-sectional study compares the prescribing practices among urologists and advanced practice clinicians who received vs did not receive payment from drug manufacturers.

Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice.

PURPOSE: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery. RESULTS: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups (P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group (P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.

Industry Payments to Urologists and Urologic Advanced Practice Providers in 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To compare industry payments from drug and medical device companies to urologists and urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) in 2021. METHODS: We used the 2020 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file to identify single-specialty urology practices, defined as those where the majority of physicians were urologists. We then used the Open Payments Program Year 2021 data to summarize the value and number of industry payments to urologists and APPs, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, in these practices. We calculated the total value and number of payments and median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists and urologic APPs. RESULTS: We identified 4418 urologists and 1099 APPs working in single-specialty urology practices in 2021 (Table 1). Of these, 3646 (87%) urologists received at least one industry payment, totaling $14,755,003 from 116,039 payments, and 954 urologic APPs (87%) received at least one industry payment, including 463 nurse practitioners (85%), totaling $401,283 from 13,035 payments, and 491 physician assistants (89%), totaling $543,429 from 14,626 payments. We observed significantly greater median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists ($620 and 24 payments) compared to urologic APPs ($473 and 21 payments; P < .001 and P = .017, respectively). CONCLUSION: A similar percentage of urologists and urologic APPs received industry payments in 2021. While urologists received a higher total number and total value of payments in 2021, urologic APPs were a common target of industry marketing payments.

Outcomes after definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in a national health care delivery system.

PURPOSE: Accurate information regarding real-world outcomes after contemporary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer is important for shared decision-making. Clinically relevant end points at 10 years among men treated within a national health care delivery system were examined. METHODS: National administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health record data were used for patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy with or without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy within the Veterans Health Administration from 2005 to 2015. National Death Index data were used through 2019 for overall and prostate cancer-specific survival and identified date of incident metastatic prostate cancer using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier methods were estimated. RESULTS: Among 41,735 men treated with definitive radiation therapy, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years and median follow-up was 8.7 years. Most had intermediate (42%) and high-risk (33%) disease, with 40% receiving androgen deprivation therapy as part of initial therapy. Unadjusted 10-year metastasis-free survival was 96%, 92%, and 80% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. Similarly, unadjusted 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%, 97%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. The unadjusted overall survival was lower across increasing disease risk categories at 77%, 71%, and 62% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide population-based 10-year benchmarks for clinically relevant end points, including metastasis-free survival, among patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy using contemporary techniques. The survival rates for high-risk disease in particular suggest that outcomes have recently improved.

Mental health care utilization among men with castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) therapies with potentially distinct associations with mental health symptoms given their differing antiandrogen targets. METHODS: We used national Veterans Health Administration data to identify patients with CRPC who received first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide from 2010 to 2017. Using Poisson regression, we compared outpatient mental health encounters per 100 patient-months on drug between the abiraterone and enzalutamide cohorts adjusting for patient factors (e.g., age). We compared mental health encounters in the year before versus after starting therapy using the McNemar test. RESULTS: We identified 2902 CRPC patients who received abiraterone (n = 1992) or enzalutamide (n = 910). We found no difference in outpatient mental health encounters between the two groups (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.15). However, men with preexisting mental health diagnoses received 81.3% of the outpatient mental health encounters and had higher rates of these encounters with enzalutamide (aIRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34). Among patients with ≥1 year of enrollment before and after starting abiraterone (n = 1139) or enzalutamide (n = 446), there was no difference in mental health care utilization before versus after starting treatment (17.0% of patients vs. 17.6%, p = 0.60, abiraterone; 16.4% vs. 18.4%, p = 0.26, enzalutamide). CONCLUSION: We found no overall differences in mental health care utilization between CRPC patients who received first-line abiraterone versus enzalutamide. However, men with preexisting mental health diagnoses received the majority of mental health care and had more mental health visits with enzalutamide.

Evaluation of emergency department treat-and-release encounters after major gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. CONCLUSIONS: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.

Outcomes of Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality and costs of care for patients evaluated for hematuria by urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) and urologists. The roles of APPs in urology are growing, but their clinical and financial outcomes compared to urologists are not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured patients using data from 2014 to 2020. We included adult beneficiaries with a diagnosis code for hematuria and an initial outpatient evaluation and management visit with a urologic APP or urologist. We assessed receipt of cystoscopy procedure, imaging study, bladder biopsy procedure, and bladder cancer diagnosis within 6 months of the initial visit. Secondary outcomes included the time until each of these outcomes occurred and the out-of-pocket spending and total payments. RESULTS: We identified 59,923 patients who were initially evaluated for hematuria. Visits with urologic nurse practitioners rather than urologists were associated with significantly lower odds of receiving cystoscopy procedures (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54-0.72, P < .001), imaging studies (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91, P < .001), and bladder biopsy procedures (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.92, P = .02). Visits with urologic physician assistants were associated with 11% greater out-of-pocket payments (incident risk ratio 1.11, CI 1.01-1.22, P = .02) and 14% greater total payments (incident risk ratio 1.14, CI 1.04-1.25, P = .004). CONCLUSION: There are clinical and financial differences in hematuria care delivered by urologic APPs and urologists. The incorporation of APPs into urologic care warrants further study, and specialty-specific training for APPs should be considered.

Evolving a national clinical trials learning health system.

Clinical trials generate key evidence to inform decision making, and also benefit participants directly. However, clinical trials frequently fail, often struggle to enroll participants, and are expensive. Part of the problem with trial conduct may be the disconnected nature of clinical trials, preventing rapid data sharing, generation of insights and targeted improvement interventions, and identification of knowledge gaps. In other areas of healthcare, a learning health system (LHS) has been proposed as a model to facilitate continuous learning and improvement. We propose that an LHS approach could greatly benefit clinical trials, allowing for continuous improvements to trial conduct and efficiency. A robust trial data sharing system, continuous analysis of trial enrollment and other success metrics, and development of targeted trial improvement interventions are potentially key components of a Trials LHS reflecting the learning cycle and allowing for continuous trial improvement. Through the development and use of a Trials LHS, clinical trials could be treated as a system, producing benefits to patients, advancing care, and decreasing costs for stakeholders.