Tags

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Key words from the Journal and the latest article from it.

TelehealthView 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

Testicular tumorView Articles

Volume 10, Number 2Case Review

Leydig Cell Hyperplasia Revealed by Gynecomastia

Case Review

Mohamed Jamal El FassiMoulay Hassan FarihMohamed Fadl TaziSoufiane Mellas

Leydig cell tumors are rare and represent 1% to 3% of all tumors of the testis. Leydig cell tumors affect males at any age, but there are 2 peak periods of incidence: between 5 and 10 years and between 25 and 35 years. Their main clinical presentation is a testicular mass associated with endocrinal manifestations that are variable according to age and appearance of the tumor. Our patient, a 17-year-old adolescent, presented with an isolated and painless hypertrophy of the right mammary gland. Clinical examination found gynecomastia and no testicular mass. Hormonal levels and tumor markers were normal. Testicular sonography showed an ovular and homogeneous right intratesticular mass 6 mm in diameter. We treated the patient with an inguinal right orchidectomy. The anatomopathological study found a nodule of Leydig cell hyperplasia. The patient recovered without recurrence at 8-month follow-up. The patient opted for mammoplasty 2 months after his orchidectomy rather than wait for the spontaneous gradual regression of his gynecomastia, which requires at least 1 year. Leydig cell hyperplasia manifests in the adult by signs of hypogonadism, most frequently gynecomastia. Although many teams prefer total orchidectomy because of the diagnostic difficulty associated with malignant forms, simple subcapsular orchidectomy should become the first-line treatment, provided it be subsequently followed by close surveillance, as it preserves maximum fertility, and these tumors usually resolve favorably. [Rev Urol. 2008:10(2):164-167]

FertilityTesticular tumorLeydig cell hyperplasiaNonseminomatous germ celltumorsGynecomastia