Advertisement

Perioperative Management of Radical Prostatectomy

The Impact of Critical Care Pathways
  • Michael O. Koch
  • Joseph A. Smith
  • David A. Miller
  • Roxelyn G. Baumgartner
  • Nancy Wells
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common neoplasm affecting the male population and is the second leading cause of death behind lung cancer. It is estimated that in 1998, 184,500 men will be diagnosed and 39,200 men will succumb to this disease (1). Owing to the varied biologic potential of this neoplasm, treatment options are individualized based on multiple factors, some of which pertain to the patient’s life expectancy, such as age and comorbidity, and others that pertain to the biological threat from the tumor, such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tumor grade, and tumor stage. In select men with organ-confined disease and good performance status with tumors believed to be biologically important, curative extirpative surgery is performed.

Keywords

Radical Prostatectomy Collaborative Care Hospital Charge Cost Containment Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society Statistics www.cancer.org.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephenson RA. Population-based prostate cancer trends in the PSA Era: data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Urology 1998; 19 (1): 3–19.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young H. A Surgeon’s Autobiography. Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1940.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sargent JC. Resection of the prostate: an evaluation. Urol Cutan Rev 1934; 38: 394.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forrest JB, Ritchie WP, Hudson M, Harlan JF. Cost containment through awareness:a strategy that failed. Surgery 1981; 90 (2): 154–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dixon RH, Laszlo J. Utilization of clinical laboratory services by medical housestaff. Arch Inter Med 1964; 134: 1064–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eisenberg JM. An educational program to modify laboratory use by housestaff. J Med Educ 1977; 52: 578–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lyle CB Jr, Bianchi RF, Harris JH, Woody ZL. Teaching cost containment to house officers at Charlotte Memorial Hospital. J Med Educ 1979; 54: 856–862.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sage WM, Kessler R, Sommers LS, Silverman JF. Physician-generated cost containment in trans-urethral prostatectomy. J Urol 1988; 140: 311–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall RC. Short surgical stay: two days for cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1987; 1544: 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weilitz PB, Potter PA. A managed care system financial and clinical evaluation. JONA 1993; 23 (11): 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch MO, Smith JA Jr, Hodge EM, Brandell RA. Prospective development of a cost-efficient program for radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1994; 44 (3): 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Litwin MS, Smith RB, Thind A, Reccius N, Blanco-Yarosh M, deKernion JB. Cost-efficient radical prostatectomy with a clinical care path. J Urol 1996; 155 (3): 989–993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Litwin MS, Shpall AL, Dorey F. Patient satisfaction with short days for radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997;49(6):898–905; discussion 905,906.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palmer JS, Worwag EM, Conrad WG, Blitz BF, Chodak GW. Same day surgery for radical prostatectomy: is it an attainable goal? Urology 1996; 47 (1): 23–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 (2): 269–276.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goode C. Impact of Care Map and case management on patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, collaboration, and autonomy. Nurs Economics 1995; 31: 337–348.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wells N, Johnson R, Salyer S. Interdisciplinary collaboration. Clin Nurse Specialist, in press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ashworth G, Erickson S. Enhancing an outcome-focused collaborative care model with charting by exception. In: Burke L, Murphy J, eds. Charting by Exception Applications. Delmar, Albany, NY, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodnough LT, Grishaber JE, Birkmeyer JD, Monk TG, Catalona WJ. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of autologous blood predeposit in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy procedures. Urology 1994; 44 (2): 226–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ames A, Adkins S, Rutledge D, Huggart K, Greeno S, Foss J, Gentry J, Trent M. Assessing work retention issues. J Nurs Admin 1991; 22: 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weiss S, Davis H. Validity and reliability of the Collaborative Practice Scales. Nurs Res 1985; 34: 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wells N, Holder G, Dengler S. Staff-nurse managed collaborative care: Evaluation on a rehabilitation unit. In: Kelly K, et al., eds. Outcomes of Effective Management Practice, vol. 8. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996, pp. 187–202.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael O. Koch
  • Joseph A. Smith
  • David A. Miller
  • Roxelyn G. Baumgartner
  • Nancy Wells

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations