Urological Surveillance and Medical Complications After Spinal Cord Injury in the United States

Published in: Urology, 2015

by Anne P. Cameron, Julie Lai, Christopher S. Saigal, J. Quentin Clemens

Read More

Access further information on this document at Urology

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate national patterns of urologic follow up after SCI and the occurrence and predictors of urological complications. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized a 5% sample of Medicare data 2007-2010. The minimum adequate urologic surveillance was defined as a: urologist visit; serum creatinine; and upper urinary tract imaging study within the two year period. Each patient was classified to their most severe complication in a multivariate linear regression model. RESULTS: Among the 7162 patients with SCI, the majority were functionally paraplegic (82.4%) and Caucasian (80.9%). 4.9% received no screening studies over the two year period, 70.5% received some, but not all screening and 24.6% received all three screening tests. Patients travelled a mean of 21.3 ±27.5 miles to receive care. A total of 35.7% of patients saw a urologist during the two year period, 48.6% had some form of upper tract evaluation, with the majority being CT scans and 90.7% had serum creatinine. Fully 35.8% of all patients had a minor complication during their two year follow up. 17.1% had a moderate complication and 8.0% had a severe complication. In our prediction model, patient factors that correlated with increased complications included male gender, African American race, paraplegia and receiving some or all of the NGB recommended screening. Patient distance of travel to their treating physician (urologist or physiatrist) did not affect the rate of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Urological complications are common in SCI who receive Medicare. Most of these patients with SCI are not receiving even the minimum recommended surveillance for these urological complications.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.