Authors

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Authors from the Journal and their last article.

Brooke EdwardsView Articles

Volume 22, Number 2Review Articles

Implementation of a Centralized, Cost-effective Call Center in a Large Urology Community Practice

Original Research

Gary M KirshStephen F KappaChris McClainKrista WallacePaul CinquinaDon LawsonMary M SmithEarl WalzBrooke Edwards

Call centers provide front-line care and service to patients. This study compared call-answering efficiency and costs between the implementation of an internal, centralized call center (January to July 2019) and previously outsourced call-center services (January to July 2018) for a large urology community practice. Retrospective review of call metrics and cost data was performed. Internal call-center leadership, training, and culture was examined through survey of staff and management. A total of 299,028 calls with an average of 5751 calls per week were answered during the study periods. The Average Speed of Answer (ASA) was 1:42 (min:s) for the outsourced call center and 0:14 for the internal call center (P < 0.001), with 70% of outsourced calls answered under 2 minutes compared with 99% of calls for the internal call center (P < 0.001). The Average Handle Time (AHT) for each outsourced call was 5:32 versus 3:41 for the internal call center (P < 0.001). The total operating expenses were 7.7% lower for the internal call center. Surveys revealed the importance of engaged leadership and staff training with feedback, simplified work algorithms, and expanded clinical roles. We found that internal, centralized call centers may provide a call-answering solution with greater efficiency and lower total operating expense versus an outsourced call center for large surgical practices. A culture that emphasizes continuous improvement and empowers call-center staff with expanded clinical roles may ultimately enhance patient communication and service. [Rev Urol. 2020;22(2):67–74] © 2020 MedReviews®, LLC

Cost effectivenessCall centerTelehealthOrganizational efficiency

Carl A OlssonView Articles

Volume 15, Number 4Original Research

Utilization Trends and Positive Biopsy Rates for Prostate Biopsies in the United States: 2005 to 2011

Deepak A KapoorAnn E AndersonCarl A OlssonSavvas E MendrinosDavid G Bostwick

This article assesses the positive biopsy rate and core sampling pattern in patients undergoing needle biopsy of the prostate in the United States at a national reference laboratory (NRL) and anatomic pathology laboratories integrated into urology group practices, and analyzes the relationship between positive biopsy rates and the number of specimen vials per biopsy. For the years 2005 to 2011 we collected pathology data from an NRL, including number of urologists and urology practices referring samples, total specimen vials submitted for prostate biopsies, and final pathologic diagnosis for each case. The diagnoses were categorized as benign, malignant, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or atypical small acinar proliferation. Over the same period, similar data were gathered from urology practices with in-house laboratories performing global pathology services (urology practice laboratories; UPLs) as identified by a survey of members of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. For each year studied, positive biopsy rate and number of specimen vials per biopsy were calculated in aggregate and separately for each site of service. From 2005 to 2011, 437,937 biopsies were submitted in . 4.23 million vials (9.4 specimen vials/biopsy); overall positive biopsy rate was 40.3%&mdash;this was identical at both the NRL and UPL (P 5 .97). Nationally, the number of specimen vials per biopsy increased sharply from a mean of 8.8 during 2005 to 2008 to a mean of 10.3 from 2009 to 2011 (difference, 1.5 specimen vials/biopsy; P 5 .03). For the most recent 3-year period (2009-2011), the difference of 0.6 specimen vials per biopsy between the NRL (10.0) and UPL (10.6) was not significant (P 5 0.08). Positive biopsy rate correlated strongly (P , .01) with number of specimen vials per biopsy. The positive prostate biopsy rate is 40.3% and is identical across sites of service. Although there was a national trend toward increased specimen vials per biopsy from 2005 to 2011, from 2009 to 2011 there was no significant difference in specimen vials per biopsy across sites of service. Increased cancer detection rate correlated significantly with increased number of specimens examined. Segregation of prostate biopsy cores into 10 to 12 unique specimen vials has been widely adopted by urologists across sites of service. [Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):137-144 doi: 10.3909/riu0600] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerProstate biopsyUtilization trendsNational reference laboratory

Carlo MarenghiView Articles

Volume 15, Number 4Review Articles

Intracavitary Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy for Upper Urinary Tract Cancer: Current Evidence

Systematic Review

Luca CarmignaniRoberto BianchiGabriele CozziNicola MacchioneCarlo MarenghiSara MelegariMarco RossoElena TondelliAugusto MaggioniAngelica Grasso

A review of the literature was performed to summarize current evidence regarding the efficacy of topical immunotherapy and chemotherapy for upper urinary tract urothelial cell carcinoma (UUT-UCC) in terms of post-treatment recurrence rates. A Medline database literature search was performed in March 2012 using the terms upper urinary tract, urothelial cancer, bacillus Calmette-Gu&eacute;rin (BCG), and mitomycin C. A total of 22 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 19 studies reporting the outcomes of patients who underwent immunotherapy or chemotherapy with curative or adjuvant intent for UUT-UCC were chosen for quantitative analysis. Overall, the role of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for UUT-UCC is not firmly established. The most established practice is the treatment of carcinoma in situ (CIS) with BCG, even if a significant advantage has not yet been proven. The use of BCG as adjuvant therapy after complete resection of papillary UUT-UCC has been studied less extensively, even if recurrence rates are not significantly different than after the treatment of CIS. Only a few reports describe the use of mitomycin C, making it difficult to obtain significant evidence. [Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):145-153 doi: 10.3909/riu0579] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

ImmunotherapyChemotherapyBacillus Calmette-GuérinUpper urinary tractUrothelial cell carcinomaMitomycin C