Objectives: The object of this study was to evaluate the results of a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) aimed at reducing the length of hospitalization and overall cost for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in a setting including both academic and private physicians. Methods: The clinical records of 1,129 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy by 24 urologists between July 1, 1990, and December 31, 1996, were reviewed. The factors considered were length of stay, morbidity and mortality, readmission rates, and average cost. The CCP was implemented on January 1, 1994. Its scope was to minimize preoperative evaluation, eliminate the preoperative hospital stay, standardize postoperative care and provide intensive patient education. Results: The average length of stay decreased significantly after implementation of the CCP (8.1 vs. 4.9 days, p = 0.0001). In 1990, there was a large difference in length of stay between academic and private physicians (8.3 vs. 12.6 days) (p = 0.02) but by 1 year after implementation of the CCP there was virtually no difference (4.69 vs. 4.71 days) (p > 0.05). Complication rates were similar before and after implementation of the CCP. Using the average 1993 cost/case as the baseline preCCP figure, the average cost of radical prostatectomy decreased by 16% in 1994 and by 22% in 1995. Conclusions: It is possible to successfully implement a CCP in a multi-physician system to reduce length of stay and cost of radical prostatectomy without subjecting the patient to a greater risk of complication.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Cost, Complications
1.
Boring CC, Squires TS, Tong T, Montgomery S: Cancer statistics. CA 1994;44:7–26.
2.
Optenberg SA, Thompson IM: Economics of screening for carcinoma of the prostate. Urol Clin N Am 1990;17:719–737.
3.
Lu-Yao GL, McLerran D, Wasson I, Wennberg IE: An assessment of radical prostatectomy: Time trends, geographic variation and outcomes. JAMA 1993;269:2633–2636.
4.
Pontes JE: Surgery of Genitourinary Pelvic Tumors: An Anatomic Atlas. New York, Wiley-Liss, 1993, vol 5, pp 73–79.
5.
Kramlowsky EV, Wood NL, Rollins KL, Glasheen WP, Nelson CM: Impact of physician awarenness on hospital charges for radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1995;154:139–142.
6.
Litwin MS, Smith RB, Thind A, Reccius N, Blanco-Yarosh M, DeKemion JB: Cost efficient radical prostatectomy with a clinical care path. J Urol 1996;155:989–993.
7.
Licht MR, Klein EA: Early hospital discharge after radical retropubic prostatectomy: Impact on cost and complication rate. Urology 1994;44:700–704.
8.
Palmer JS, Worwag EM, Conrad WG, Blitz BF, Chodak GW: Same day surgery for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Is it an attainable goal? Urology 1996;47:23–28.
9.
Hautmann RE, Sauter TW, Wenderoth UK: Radical retropubic prostatectomy: Morbidity and urinary continence in 418 consecutive cases. Urology 1994;43:47–51.
10.
Igel TC, Barrett DM, Segura JW, Benson RC, Rife CC: Perioperative and postoperative complications from bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy and radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1987;137:1189–1191.
11.
Andriole GL, Smith DS, Rao G, Goodnough L, Catalona WJ: Early complications of contemporary anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1994;152:1858–1860.
12.
Klein EA, Grass JA, Calabrese DA, Kay RA, Sargeant W, O’Hara JF: Maintaining quality of care and patient satisfaction with radical prostatectomy in the era of cost containment. Urology 1996;48:269–276.
13.
Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC: The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993;150:110–114.
14.
Dillioglugil OI, Leibman BD, Neville S, Leibman NS, Kattan MW, Rosas AL, Scardino PT: Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1997;157:1760–1767.
1999
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.