Loading…

How successful is the transition to adult urology care in spina bifida? A single center 7-year experience

Summary Introduction Rates of successful transition from adolescent to adult spina bifida (SB) care are unknown. Objective We aimed to assess rates and predictors of successful transition from a multidisciplinary SB clinic to a transitional urology clinic (TUC), or a pediatric or adult urologist. St...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of pediatric urology 2017-02, Vol.13 (1), p.40.e1-40.e6
Main Authors: Szymanski, Konrad M, Cain, Mark P, Hardacker, Thomas, Misseri, Rosalia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-83590f4d220cac19ae2178181703815491b93f54c8d8085e3a49903e0ef929c53
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-83590f4d220cac19ae2178181703815491b93f54c8d8085e3a49903e0ef929c53
container_end_page 40.e6
container_issue 1
container_start_page 40.e1
container_title Journal of pediatric urology
container_volume 13
creator Szymanski, Konrad M
Cain, Mark P
Hardacker, Thomas
Misseri, Rosalia
description Summary Introduction Rates of successful transition from adolescent to adult spina bifida (SB) care are unknown. Objective We aimed to assess rates and predictors of successful transition from a multidisciplinary SB clinic to a transitional urology clinic (TUC), or a pediatric or adult urologist. Study design We retrospectively reviewed patients discharged from a multidisciplinary SB clinic (2006–2012, see Figure ), collecting demographic and clinical data. At transition, all patients/families were given instructions to arrange an appointment within 12 months. Patients who followed-up within 2 years were classified as transitioned. Logistic regression was used for analysis. Results Of 77 patients discharged at a mean age of 19.1 years, 31 (40.3%) successfully transitioned (mean follow-up 4.7 years). Only 20/41 (48.8%) with prior bladder augmentation, urinary channel, and MACE transitioned. There was no significant change in patients transitioning over time or late catch-up presentations ( p ≥0.41). Transitioned and non-transitioned groups were similar in age, gender, home-to-clinic distance, insurance, ambulation, shunt status, prior non-adherence, emergency room visits, neurosurgery appointments, hospitalizations, and surgeries (including genitourinary reconstruction) before discharge ( p ≥0.22). Transitioned patients had more pre-discharge appointments with services outside the SB clinic ( p =0.01) and radiographic studies ( p
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.09.020
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1852688014</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1477513116303345</els_id><sourcerecordid>1852688014</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-83590f4d220cac19ae2178181703815491b93f54c8d8085e3a49903e0ef929c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9v1DAQxS0EoqXwDRDykUvC-E_W9gVUVUCRKnEAzpbXmRSHrB1sp7DfnoQtHLhwmhnpvXma3xDynEHLgO1eje04LzlNLV-nFkwLHB6Qc6aVaKQ2-uHaS6Wajgl2Rp6UMgIIBdw8JmdcGWU6o89JuE4_aFm8x1KGZaKh0PoVac0ullBDirQm6vplqnQLS7dH6l1GGiItc4iO7sMQeveGXtIS4u2E1GOsmKlqjugyxZ8z5oDR41PyaHBTwWf39YJ8eff289V1c_Px_Yery5vGS6Zqo0VnYJA95-CdZ8YhZ0ozzRQIzTpp2N6IoZNe9xp0h8JJY0Ag4GC48Z24IC9Pe-ecvi9Yqj2E4nGaXMS0FMt0x3daA5OrVJ6kPqdSMg52zuHg8tEysBtkO9oTZLtBtmDsCnm1vbhPWPYH7P-a_lBdBa9PAlzvvAuYbfG_GfQho6-2T-F_Cf8u8FOIwbvpGx6xjGnJcWVomS3cgv20PXr7M9sJEEJ24hff-6Pf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1852688014</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How successful is the transition to adult urology care in spina bifida? A single center 7-year experience</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Szymanski, Konrad M ; Cain, Mark P ; Hardacker, Thomas ; Misseri, Rosalia</creator><creatorcontrib>Szymanski, Konrad M ; Cain, Mark P ; Hardacker, Thomas ; Misseri, Rosalia</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Introduction Rates of successful transition from adolescent to adult spina bifida (SB) care are unknown. Objective We aimed to assess rates and predictors of successful transition from a multidisciplinary SB clinic to a transitional urology clinic (TUC), or a pediatric or adult urologist. Study design We retrospectively reviewed patients discharged from a multidisciplinary SB clinic (2006–2012, see Figure ), collecting demographic and clinical data. At transition, all patients/families were given instructions to arrange an appointment within 12 months. Patients who followed-up within 2 years were classified as transitioned. Logistic regression was used for analysis. Results Of 77 patients discharged at a mean age of 19.1 years, 31 (40.3%) successfully transitioned (mean follow-up 4.7 years). Only 20/41 (48.8%) with prior bladder augmentation, urinary channel, and MACE transitioned. There was no significant change in patients transitioning over time or late catch-up presentations ( p ≥0.41). Transitioned and non-transitioned groups were similar in age, gender, home-to-clinic distance, insurance, ambulation, shunt status, prior non-adherence, emergency room visits, neurosurgery appointments, hospitalizations, and surgeries (including genitourinary reconstruction) before discharge ( p ≥0.22). Transitioned patients had more pre-discharge appointments with services outside the SB clinic ( p =0.01) and radiographic studies ( p &lt;0.001), but these were not significant on multivariate analysis ( p ≥0.16). Among those who did not transition, five (6.5%) presented after 2 years, rarely with new complaints (20.0%). Patients without urological follow-up were most likely to visit the emergency room ( p =0.03). Discussion To facilitate continued care and a smooth transition, the TUC was opened across the corridor from the multidisciplinary SB clinic. To our surprise, a low percentage of patients actually transitioned to adult care over the last 7 years. It is a sobering fact that despite offering three different transition models, &lt;50% of patients took advantage of any of them. While none of the predictors we anticipated to be important in a successful transition were statistically significant, potentially because of low statistical power, perhaps others, such as insufficient time to coordinate care, wait times, and lack of adult coordinated care programs, may be more important. We were unable to compare the urologic health of those who did and did not transition, as we relied on medical record data. Conclusions Only 40% of patients transitioned successfully from a multidisciplinary SB clinic and few presented after 2 years. Patients who transitioned tended to have more active health issues and more radiographic tests prior to discharge. Those followed by a urologist are less likely to use emergency room services.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1477-5131</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4898</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.09.020</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27979598</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Pediatrics ; Retrospective Studies ; Self Care - standards ; Spina bifida ; Spinal Dysraphism - surgery ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Time Factors ; Transition to Adult Care - standards ; Transitional urology ; Urinary tract reconstruction ; Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Urology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of pediatric urology, 2017-02, Vol.13 (1), p.40.e1-40.e6</ispartof><rights>Journal of Pediatric Urology Company</rights><rights>2016 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-83590f4d220cac19ae2178181703815491b93f54c8d8085e3a49903e0ef929c53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-83590f4d220cac19ae2178181703815491b93f54c8d8085e3a49903e0ef929c53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27979598$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Szymanski, Konrad M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cain, Mark P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hardacker, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misseri, Rosalia</creatorcontrib><title>How successful is the transition to adult urology care in spina bifida? A single center 7-year experience</title><title>Journal of pediatric urology</title><addtitle>J Pediatr Urol</addtitle><description>Summary Introduction Rates of successful transition from adolescent to adult spina bifida (SB) care are unknown. Objective We aimed to assess rates and predictors of successful transition from a multidisciplinary SB clinic to a transitional urology clinic (TUC), or a pediatric or adult urologist. Study design We retrospectively reviewed patients discharged from a multidisciplinary SB clinic (2006–2012, see Figure ), collecting demographic and clinical data. At transition, all patients/families were given instructions to arrange an appointment within 12 months. Patients who followed-up within 2 years were classified as transitioned. Logistic regression was used for analysis. Results Of 77 patients discharged at a mean age of 19.1 years, 31 (40.3%) successfully transitioned (mean follow-up 4.7 years). Only 20/41 (48.8%) with prior bladder augmentation, urinary channel, and MACE transitioned. There was no significant change in patients transitioning over time or late catch-up presentations ( p ≥0.41). Transitioned and non-transitioned groups were similar in age, gender, home-to-clinic distance, insurance, ambulation, shunt status, prior non-adherence, emergency room visits, neurosurgery appointments, hospitalizations, and surgeries (including genitourinary reconstruction) before discharge ( p ≥0.22). Transitioned patients had more pre-discharge appointments with services outside the SB clinic ( p =0.01) and radiographic studies ( p &lt;0.001), but these were not significant on multivariate analysis ( p ≥0.16). Among those who did not transition, five (6.5%) presented after 2 years, rarely with new complaints (20.0%). Patients without urological follow-up were most likely to visit the emergency room ( p =0.03). Discussion To facilitate continued care and a smooth transition, the TUC was opened across the corridor from the multidisciplinary SB clinic. To our surprise, a low percentage of patients actually transitioned to adult care over the last 7 years. It is a sobering fact that despite offering three different transition models, &lt;50% of patients took advantage of any of them. While none of the predictors we anticipated to be important in a successful transition were statistically significant, potentially because of low statistical power, perhaps others, such as insufficient time to coordinate care, wait times, and lack of adult coordinated care programs, may be more important. We were unable to compare the urologic health of those who did and did not transition, as we relied on medical record data. Conclusions Only 40% of patients transitioned successfully from a multidisciplinary SB clinic and few presented after 2 years. Patients who transitioned tended to have more active health issues and more radiographic tests prior to discharge. Those followed by a urologist are less likely to use emergency room services.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Self Care - standards</subject><subject>Spina bifida</subject><subject>Spinal Dysraphism - surgery</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Transition to Adult Care - standards</subject><subject>Transitional urology</subject><subject>Urinary tract reconstruction</subject><subject>Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1477-5131</issn><issn>1873-4898</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU9v1DAQxS0EoqXwDRDykUvC-E_W9gVUVUCRKnEAzpbXmRSHrB1sp7DfnoQtHLhwmhnpvXma3xDynEHLgO1eje04LzlNLV-nFkwLHB6Qc6aVaKQ2-uHaS6Wajgl2Rp6UMgIIBdw8JmdcGWU6o89JuE4_aFm8x1KGZaKh0PoVac0ullBDirQm6vplqnQLS7dH6l1GGiItc4iO7sMQeveGXtIS4u2E1GOsmKlqjugyxZ8z5oDR41PyaHBTwWf39YJ8eff289V1c_Px_Yery5vGS6Zqo0VnYJA95-CdZ8YhZ0ozzRQIzTpp2N6IoZNe9xp0h8JJY0Ag4GC48Z24IC9Pe-ecvi9Yqj2E4nGaXMS0FMt0x3daA5OrVJ6kPqdSMg52zuHg8tEysBtkO9oTZLtBtmDsCnm1vbhPWPYH7P-a_lBdBa9PAlzvvAuYbfG_GfQho6-2T-F_Cf8u8FOIwbvpGx6xjGnJcWVomS3cgv20PXr7M9sJEEJ24hff-6Pf</recordid><startdate>20170201</startdate><enddate>20170201</enddate><creator>Szymanski, Konrad M</creator><creator>Cain, Mark P</creator><creator>Hardacker, Thomas</creator><creator>Misseri, Rosalia</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170201</creationdate><title>How successful is the transition to adult urology care in spina bifida? A single center 7-year experience</title><author>Szymanski, Konrad M ; Cain, Mark P ; Hardacker, Thomas ; Misseri, Rosalia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-83590f4d220cac19ae2178181703815491b93f54c8d8085e3a49903e0ef929c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Self Care - standards</topic><topic>Spina bifida</topic><topic>Spinal Dysraphism - surgery</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Transition to Adult Care - standards</topic><topic>Transitional urology</topic><topic>Urinary tract reconstruction</topic><topic>Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Szymanski, Konrad M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cain, Mark P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hardacker, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misseri, Rosalia</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of pediatric urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Szymanski, Konrad M</au><au>Cain, Mark P</au><au>Hardacker, Thomas</au><au>Misseri, Rosalia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How successful is the transition to adult urology care in spina bifida? A single center 7-year experience</atitle><jtitle>Journal of pediatric urology</jtitle><addtitle>J Pediatr Urol</addtitle><date>2017-02-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>40.e1</spage><epage>40.e6</epage><pages>40.e1-40.e6</pages><issn>1477-5131</issn><eissn>1873-4898</eissn><abstract>Summary Introduction Rates of successful transition from adolescent to adult spina bifida (SB) care are unknown. Objective We aimed to assess rates and predictors of successful transition from a multidisciplinary SB clinic to a transitional urology clinic (TUC), or a pediatric or adult urologist. Study design We retrospectively reviewed patients discharged from a multidisciplinary SB clinic (2006–2012, see Figure ), collecting demographic and clinical data. At transition, all patients/families were given instructions to arrange an appointment within 12 months. Patients who followed-up within 2 years were classified as transitioned. Logistic regression was used for analysis. Results Of 77 patients discharged at a mean age of 19.1 years, 31 (40.3%) successfully transitioned (mean follow-up 4.7 years). Only 20/41 (48.8%) with prior bladder augmentation, urinary channel, and MACE transitioned. There was no significant change in patients transitioning over time or late catch-up presentations ( p ≥0.41). Transitioned and non-transitioned groups were similar in age, gender, home-to-clinic distance, insurance, ambulation, shunt status, prior non-adherence, emergency room visits, neurosurgery appointments, hospitalizations, and surgeries (including genitourinary reconstruction) before discharge ( p ≥0.22). Transitioned patients had more pre-discharge appointments with services outside the SB clinic ( p =0.01) and radiographic studies ( p &lt;0.001), but these were not significant on multivariate analysis ( p ≥0.16). Among those who did not transition, five (6.5%) presented after 2 years, rarely with new complaints (20.0%). Patients without urological follow-up were most likely to visit the emergency room ( p =0.03). Discussion To facilitate continued care and a smooth transition, the TUC was opened across the corridor from the multidisciplinary SB clinic. To our surprise, a low percentage of patients actually transitioned to adult care over the last 7 years. It is a sobering fact that despite offering three different transition models, &lt;50% of patients took advantage of any of them. While none of the predictors we anticipated to be important in a successful transition were statistically significant, potentially because of low statistical power, perhaps others, such as insufficient time to coordinate care, wait times, and lack of adult coordinated care programs, may be more important. We were unable to compare the urologic health of those who did and did not transition, as we relied on medical record data. Conclusions Only 40% of patients transitioned successfully from a multidisciplinary SB clinic and few presented after 2 years. Patients who transitioned tended to have more active health issues and more radiographic tests prior to discharge. Those followed by a urologist are less likely to use emergency room services.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>27979598</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.09.020</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1477-5131
ispartof Journal of pediatric urology, 2017-02, Vol.13 (1), p.40.e1-40.e6
issn 1477-5131
1873-4898
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1852688014
source Elsevier
subjects Adolescent
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Pediatrics
Retrospective Studies
Self Care - standards
Spina bifida
Spinal Dysraphism - surgery
Surveys and Questionnaires
Time Factors
Transition to Adult Care - standards
Transitional urology
Urinary tract reconstruction
Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods
Urology
Young Adult
title How successful is the transition to adult urology care in spina bifida? A single center 7-year experience
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T18%3A35%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20successful%20is%20the%20transition%20to%20adult%20urology%20care%20in%20spina%20bifida?%20A%20single%20center%207-year%20experience&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20pediatric%20urology&rft.au=Szymanski,%20Konrad%20M&rft.date=2017-02-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=40.e1&rft.epage=40.e6&rft.pages=40.e1-40.e6&rft.issn=1477-5131&rft.eissn=1873-4898&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.09.020&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1852688014%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-83590f4d220cac19ae2178181703815491b93f54c8d8085e3a49903e0ef929c53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1852688014&rft_id=info:pmid/27979598&rfr_iscdi=true