| Abstract: | Background : A retrospective analysis of data from the Victorian Inpatient Minimum Database (VIMD) was conducted to analyse trends in prostatectomy rates in Victorian public acute-care hospitals from 1989/90 to 1994/95. The study also sought to identify predictors of adverse events (AE) after prostatectomy, and to compare in-hospital complications between open prostatectomy and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). Methods : All patients who had undergone any prostatectomy were identified according to the relevant ICD-9-CM procedure codes (60.2–60.4) documented in the VIMD. The main outcome measures, AE, were identified using the ICD-9-CM supplementary classification of external cause of injury (E850–858, E870–876, E878–879, E930–949). The variables used as predictors were year of prostatectomy, type of admission (planned, emergency), location of the hospital (rural, metropolitan), type of procedure (TURP, open), and teaching status of the hospital. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) were based on univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results : The rates of prostatectomies have significantly increased over the 6-year study period (P for trend < 0.0001). The percentage of AE after prostatectomy increased simultaneously from 6.1 to 12.9% (P < 0.0001). During the same period, the in-hospital mortality rate after prostatectomy decreased from 1.2 to 0.5%, and length of stay decreased from 10.3 to 6.1 days (Kruskal–Wallis P < 0.0001). The significant predictors of outcome were year of prostatectomy (P for trend < 0.0001), emergency admissions (OR = 1.57; P < 0.0001), metropolitan hospitals (OR = 0.81; P= 0.0003), non-teaching hospitals (OR = 0.78; P < 0.0001), and open prostatectomy (OR = 1.52; P= 0.04). More in-hospital complications were associated with open prostatectomy than with TURP. Conclusions : The rise in AE rate after prostatectomy is unlikely to reflect poor quality of care, because in the same period there was a significant decrease in in-hospital mortality after prostatectomy. A more likely explanation is heightened awareness of AE with a lower threshold for reporting such events. Important factors other than variations in quality of care can result in an increase in AE. Hence the reported increase should be interpreted with caution before attempting to conclude that changes in clinical practice could have a direct impact on these rates. |
