The impact of the Ontario quality-based procedures funding model on radical prostatectomy outcomes

Authors

  • Nickan Motamedi London Health Sciences Centre
  • Andrew McClure
  • Nicholas E. Power Western University
  • Stephen Pautler Western University
  • Lilian Gien
  • Blayne Welk Western University
  • Jacob McGee

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8632

Keywords:

Radical Prostatectomy, Quality-based procedures, Prostate Cancer, Waitlist, complication rate, Length of stay

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In 2015, radical prostatectomy (RP) in Ontario transitioned to the quality-based procedures (QBP) funding model, which assigns disbursement from surgical quality indicator (QI) outcome performance. The objective of this study was to assess the QBP QI outcomes before and after implementation of the QBP funding model for RP, and to determine whether changes seen were attributable to the QBP model.

METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study including all men who underwent RP for prostate cancer in Ontario from 2010–2019. We used administrative data from Ontario’s health databases to gather surgical and QI outcome data. Our primary outcomes were the five measurable QBP QIs outlined by the province. We performed a pre- and post-intervention comparison, in addition to an interrupted-time series (ITS) analysis.

RESULTS: Two of the five QIs improved after implementation of the QBP model (complication rate: 11.89% vs. 9.96%, p<0.001; proportion meeting length of stay target: 78.11% vs. 86.84%, p<0.001). ITS analysis revealed that there was no difference in trend in either outcome between pre- and post-implementation periods (p=0.913 and p=0.249, respectively). Two QIs were worse in the post-implementation period (unplanned visit rate: 23.45% vs. 25%, p=0.015; proportion meeting Wait 2 target: 94.39% vs. 92.88%, p<0.001). ITS revealed no significant trend changes post-implementation (p=0.260 and p=0.272, respectively). There was no difference in re-operation rate (2.84% vs. 2.45%, p=0.107).

CONCLUSIONS: The QBP model for RP corresponds with mixed QI changes, but further analysis suggests that these changes were pre-existing trends and not attributable to the model.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2024-05-21

How to Cite

Motamedi, N., McClure , A. ., Power, N. E., Pautler, S. ., Gien, L. ., Welk, B. ., & McGee, J. . (2024). The impact of the Ontario quality-based procedures funding model on radical prostatectomy outcomes. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 18(9), E269–75. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8632

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 9 (2024): CUAJ September

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.