Implementation of a common clinical path for transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in multiple hospitals

Abstract

(Purpose) To investigate the length of hospitalization and medical charges when a common clinical path for TURP (transurethral resection of prostate) was implemented in multiple hospitals. (Patients and Methods) This study included 310 patients in 2001 and 298 in 2002, who were diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia and who underwent TURP in seven hospitals in Japan. While the patients were treated according to the managing methods of each hospital in 2001, the patients were managed using a common clinical path in 2002, on which we conferred and established in 2001. We investigated the change of various outcome indicators before and after implementation of the common clinical path. (Results) The background of patients and surgical outcome in 2002 were equal to those in 2001, except in incidence of preoperative urinary tract infection, general anesthesia and blood transfusion, and number of surgeons. Implementation of a common clinical path shortened the pre- and postoperative hospital stay, duration of bed rest, administration of antibiotics and Foley catheter indwelling, and reduced the standard deviation of these indicators. The total medical charge decreased from 515,439 to 491,935 yen. However, outcomes were considerably different among the seven hospitals. Multivariate analyses identified the hospitals, cognitive impairment, preoperative indwelling catheter and preoperative variance as the factors affecting preoperative hospital stay, and the hospitals, co-existing disease, blood transfusion, postoperative urinary tract infection and postoperative variance as factors affecting postoperative stay. Based on these analyses, we determined four exclusion criteria against using a common clinical path: 1) patients requiring examination or surgery other than TURP simultaneously, 2) patients whose ADL disturbance, cognitive impairment, past history and/or coexisting disease are expected to affect postoperative convalescence, 3) patients with a preoperative indwelling catheter just before operation, and 4) patients with preoperative urinary tract infection. By excluding 122 (39.4%) and 129 (43.3%) patients fulfilling the above criteria in 2001 and 2002, respectively, there were reduction in the length of pre- and postoperative hospital stay, and the total admission fee. Furthermore, there were decrease in their standard deviations. (Conclusions) A common clinical path was valid for reducing variance of the critical indicators affecting the clinical course of TURP and shortening the pre-and postoperative stay in the multiple hospitals. It is mandatory to establish the standard perioperative management for TURP from the viewpoint of urologists, under the circumstances of the impending introduction of the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC).