MP51-18 COMPARING ENCOUNTERS FOR UROLOGIC VS. NON-UROLOGIC PROBLEMS AMONG PATIENTS WITH GENITOURINARY CONGENITALISM

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatric Urology IV (MP51)1 Sep 2021MP51-18 COMPARING ENCOUNTERS FOR UROLOGIC VS. NON-UROLOGIC PROBLEMS AMONG PATIENTS WITH GENITOURINARY CONGENITALISM Michael Sadighian, Debbie Goldberg, William Shibley, Johsias Maru, Hillary Copp, and Lindsay Hampson Michael SadighianMichael Sadighian More articles by this author , Debbie GoldbergDebbie Goldberg More articles by this author , William ShibleyWilliam Shibley More articles by this author , Johsias MaruJohsias Maru More articles by this author , Hillary CoppHillary Copp More articles by this author , and Lindsay HampsonLindsay Hampson More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002077.18AboutAbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about patients with genitourinary congenitalism (GUC) and their utilization of the healthcare system. The primary aim of this study is to describe healthcare utilization among the GUC population in four key parameters: frequency of encounters, care setting, length of stay, and cost of care. The secondary aim is to compare these parameters for urologic encounters vs. non-urologic encounters within the GUC population. METHODS: We queried the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) database from 1995 to 2017, which captures all patient encounters at California-licensed hospitals, emergency rooms, and ambulatory surgery centers. We identified the GUC cohort by ICD and CPT codes corresponding with spina bifida, hypospadias, disorders of sexual development, prune belly syndrome, bladder exstrophy, posterior urethral valves, and epispadias. Based on discharge diagnosis we determined whether a patient’s encounter was for reasons related to their urologic condition versus encounters for any other medical problem. Comorbidities were determined by the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We used SAS for statistical analysis with a cutoff of p<0.01 for statistical significance. RESULTS: Our analysis included 591,508 encounters by GUC patients for urologic problems (n=127372) and non-urologic problems (n=464136; Table 1). Mean age was lower for urologic encounters compared to non-urologic encounters (p<0.001). Over one-third of encounters occurred in patients with comorbidities. When GUC patients sought care for urologic problems, the majority of encounters were inpatient admissions (56%) followed by emergency room visits (27%), whereas 56% of non-urologic encounters took place in the emergency room (p<0.001). When GUC patients are admitted to the hospital, mean length of stay (p<0.001) and cost of care (p<0.001) were both greater for urologic diagnoses compared to non-urologic diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: GUC patients are more likely to be admitted to the hospital with greater length of stay and cost of care for problems related to their urologic condition. Future studies should investigate predictors of inpatient admission and length of stay in this vulnerable population. Source of Funding: UCSF Urology © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e903-e903 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michael Sadighian More articles by this author Debbie Goldberg More articles by this author William Shibley More articles by this author Johsias Maru More articles by this author Hillary Copp More articles by this author Lindsay Hampson More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement Loading ...