Geographical variation in the management of urolithiasis in Australia

• Published in: ANZ journal of surgery Vol. 87; no. 6; pp. 509 - 513
• Main Authors: Tran, Minh A., Chak‐Lee, Ming, Bariol, Simon V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Melbourne Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 01.06.2017; Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Subjects: Aged; Australia; Australia - epidemiology; Cities; Disease Management; Female; Geography; Government programs; Health care; Health Services Accessibility - trends; Humans; Lithiasis; Lithotripsy; Lithotripsy - methods; Male; Management; Medical personnel; Middle Aged; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; New Zealand; Northern Territory; Patients; Per capita; Private sector; Queensland; Retrospective Studies; Shock; Stone; Surgeons; Tasmania; Ureteroscopy - methods; Urolithiasis; Urolithiasis - surgery; Urologists - statistics & numerical data; Urology; Victoria; Western Australia; Australia; urolithiasis; Australia
• ISSN: 1445-1433; 1445-2197
• DOI: 10.1111/ans.13646

Background To examine any geographical variation in the management of urolithiasis amongst the Australian states and territories. Methods Retrospective study with data obtained from the Medicare Australia database, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand. Results Minimally invasive stone treatment with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) accounted for the majority of stone treatments in Australia (98%). Variation of stone treatment modalities exists amongst the Australian states and territories with an inverse relationship between the use of SWL and URS. We compared Western Australia (WA) and Queensland (QLD) which have a comparable geographical area. SWL accounts for 1% and 22% of stone treatments in WA and QLD, respectively. In WA, urologists are concentrated in two cities with no SWL available in the private sector. In QLD, urologists are distributed in 11 cities with SWL available in both the public and private sector. The three largest states or territories by geographical area – the Northern Territory, WA and QLD – have stone treatment rates of 1:1337, 1:1110 and 1:2432 per capita of privately insured patients, respectively. In comparison, smaller Australian states/territories such as Tasmania and Victoria have stone treatment rates of 1:619 and 1:765 per capita of privately insured patients, respectively. Conclusion The distribution of urologists and treatment modalities available in each state or territory appear to play a contributory role in choice of treatment modality. In addition, inequality to stone treatment access exists in geographically large Australian states/territories.