Determinants of urologists’ adherence to active surveillance follow-up protocol for low-risk prostate cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12-12
Author(s):  
Soohyun Hwang ◽  
Sarah A. Birken

12 Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline offers a guideline for follow-up care for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). However, in practice, 70% of patients receive follow-up care that is not guideline-adherent, characterized by insufficient or excessive surveillance testing, potentially diminishing AS effectiveness and contributing to poor patient outcomes. The objective of this study is to identify provider- and organization-level determinants of guideline-adherent AS follow-up care. Methods: We used in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with 13 United States urologists to examine determinants of urologists’ adherence to the active surveillance follow-up guideline. Guided by the combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which focuses on organization-level determinants, and the Theoretical Domains Framework, which focuses on provider-level determinants, we used template analysis to identify multilevel determinants of urologists’ adherence to guideline-recommended AS follow-up care. Results: Relevant determinants were comfort with varied utilization behaviors of the guideline, perspectives on the prostate biopsy procedure, and the degree of structure within the practice setting. At the provider level, there was variation in how urologists provided AS follow-up care. All urologists referred to the NCCN guideline; however, most urologists adapted the guidelines to their needs and/or comfort level (e.g., following a subset of recommendations; adapting the interval/frequency of serial tests). Most providers felt that strictly adhering to the repeated biopsy aspect of the guideline was difficult because of concerns about fitting everybody to one type of frequency that does not stratify patients by risk. Others reflected on patients expressing physical discomfort and concerns of infection stemming from the biopsy procedure. At the organization level, urologists in a structured practice environment had the tendency towards providing NCCN guideline-adherent care whereas urologists practicing in settings with less organization relied more on individual discretion, which created room for flexibility with the care that they provide. Conclusions: Both provider- and organization-level determinants affected urologists’ provision of NCCN guideline-adherent follow-up care which may partially explain why patients eventually fail to receive guideline-adherent AS follow-up care. Findings call on the need for multilevel strategies to increase adherence or to modify existing guidelines to reflect the need at multiple levels.

2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinath Kotamarti* ◽  
Andrew Wood ◽  
Alyssa Yee ◽  
Daniel Rabinowitz ◽  
Allison Marziliano ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 81-81
Author(s):  
Fred Saad ◽  
Kittie Pang ◽  
Margaret Fitch ◽  
Veronique Ouellet ◽  
Simone Chevalier ◽  
...  

81 Background: Active surveillance has gained widespread acceptance as a safe approach for patients with low risk prostate cancer. Despite presenting several advantages for both patients and the health care system, active surveillance is not adopted by all eligible patients. In this study, we evaluated the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach. Methods: We conducted five focus groups with a total of 48 health care providers (HCP) including family physicians, urologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, fellows, and residents/medical students. These participants were all providing care for men with low risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of these HCP from academic hospitals in four Canadian provinces was captured. A content and theme analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts to understand HCP decisions in proposing active surveillance and reveal the facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. Results: Participants agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low risk prostate cancer patients, but expressed concerns on the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They raised the need for additional tools to appropriately identify the patients best suited for active surveillance. Collaborations between urologists, radiation-oncologists, and medical oncologists were favoured, however, the role of general practitioners remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist. Conclusions: Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers, and more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would help both patients and physicians in the decision-making for active surveillance.


2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Yong Ha ◽  
Teak Jun Shin ◽  
Wonho Jung ◽  
Byung Hoon Kim ◽  
Choal Hee Park ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document