Variation in the quality of surgical care for uterovaginal prolapse.

Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Division of General Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 01/2011; 49(1):46-51. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f37fed
Source: PubMed


Pelvic organ prolapse is a common disorder, affecting an estimated 24% of women in the United States, with more than 200,000 surgical procedures performed annually. Current treatment recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists include pelvic floor reconstruction (or pexy) procedures to correct prolapse, with or without hysterectomy; however, many women are treated by hysterectomy alone.
To determine whether hospital characteristics predict compliance with recommended surgical care for uterovaginal prolapse.
Retrospective analysis of linked California hospital discharge and financial data. International Classification of Diseases, ninth Edition Clinical Modification codes identified records with a primary diagnosis of prolapse and concomitant coding for surgical procedures. χ2 analysis and multivariable models were used to characterize the associations between hospital characteristics and compliance. Compliant care was defined as prolapse treatment by pelvic floor reconstruction (pexy) procedure with or without hysterectomy. Failed compliance was defined as hysterectomy alone.
A total of 28,539 cases in 343 hospitals were analyzed. Low compliance rates were detected in all hospital types, though some were better than others. High-volume (odds ratios [OR] = 1.75; 95% CI: [1.62, 1.89]), teaching (OR = 2.03; 95% CI: [1.84, 2.25]), and private (OR = 1.28; 95% CI: [1.14, 1.46]) hospitals were more likely, while disproportionate share hospitals were less likely (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: [0.54, 0.63]) to comply with evidence-based recommendation.
Although we did find significant variation in compliance by hospital characteristics, compliance rates were low in all settings. Quality improvement efforts in the surgical treatment of uterovaginal prolapse should focus on increasing adherence to evidence-based practice.

6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction and hypothesis: The epidemiologic description of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) procedures is documented in several large studies using national database cohorts. These studies, however, may underestimate the number of procedures performed because they only capture procedures performed in either the inpatient or outpatient settings alone. We present a complete annual description of all inpatient and outpatient surgeries for POP and SUI in California. Methods: We reviewed a record of all inpatient and outpatient POP and SUI surgeries performed in California in 2008 using data from the Office of Statewide Health Planning (OSHPD). Results: In 2008, 20,004 and 20,330 women in California underwent POP and SUI procedures, respectively. Of these, 3,134 (15.6%) and 9,016 (44.3%) were performed in an outpatient setting. The age-adjusted rates of POP and SUI were 1.20 and 1.20 per 1,000 US females, respectively. This correlates to 186,000 POP and 186,000 SUI procedures per year nationally. Vaginal apical suspensions were more common in those undergoing surgery as an inpatient (45.1 vs 19.4%). The use of mesh to augment prolapse repairs was similar (22.3% inpatient vs 19.3% outpatient). SUI procedures performed in the outpatient setting were more likely to be performed as stand-alone procedures (82.9 vs 18.8%, respectively). Conclusions: In California, 16% of POP and 44% of SUI procedures were performed in an outpatient surgical setting in 2008. Epidemiologic studies of POP and SUI should account for the fact that a substantial number of repairs are performed in the outpatient setting in order to achieve accuracy.
    International Urogynecology Journal 05/2013; 24(11). DOI:10.1007/s00192-013-2113-z · 1.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction and hypothesis: A paucity of data exists addressing the quality of care provided to women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We sought to develop a means of measuring this quality through the development of quality-of-care indicators (QIs). Methods: QIs were modeled after those previously described in the Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project. The indicators were then presented to a panel of nine experts. Using the RAND Appropriateness Method, we analyzed each indicator's preliminary rankings. A forum was then held in which each indicator was thoroughly discussed by the panelists as a group, after which panelists individually re-rated the indicators. QIs with median scores of at least 7 were considered valid. Results: QIs were developed that addressed screening, diagnosis, work-up, and both nonsurgical and surgical management. Areas of controversy included whether screening should be performed to identify prolapse, whether pessary users should undergo a vaginal examination by a health professional every 6 months versus annually, and whether a colpocleisis should be offered to older women planning to undergo surgery for POP. Fourteen out of 21 potential indicators were rated as valid for pelvic organ prolapse (median score ≥7). Conclusion: We developed and rated 14 potential quality indicators for the care of women with POP. Once these QIs are tested for feasibility they can be used on a larger scale to measure and compare the care provided to women with prolapse in different clinical settings.
    International Urogynecology Journal 05/2013; 24(12). DOI:10.1007/s00192-013-2105-z · 1.96 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 04/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.04.001 · 1.83 Impact Factor
Show more