Measuring the Quality of Care Provided to Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published in: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, v. 212, no. 4, Apr. 2015, 471.e1–471.e9
Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 2014
Read MoreAccess further information on this document at American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.
OBJECTIVE: Health care providers are increasingly being evaluated by the quality of care they provide. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of recently developed quality indicators (QIs) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and identify possible deficits in care. STUDY DESIGN: A panel ranked 14 QIs based on the RAND appropriateness method assessing screening and diagnosis, pessary management, and surgery for POP. Retrospective chart abstraction was performed after identifying patients with a diagnosis of POP evaluated within a hospital-based multispecialty group using International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, diagnosis codes. RESULTS: Of 283 patients identified, 98% of those with a new complaint of vaginal bulge had a pelvic examination. The POP was described but not staged in 6% and not documented at all in 25.1%. Among those managed with pessaries, 98% had vaginal examinations at least every 6 months. Forty-nine percent of the patients who had surgery had complete preoperative POP staging. Only 20% of women undergoing apical surgery had documentation of counseling regarding different surgical options, and of the women who underwent a hysterectomy for POP, only 48% had a concomitant vault suspension. Although 71% had documentation about the risk of postoperative stress incontinence, only 14.5% had documented counseling regarding risks of mesh. Only 37% of patients implanted with mesh for POP had documented follow-up at 1 year. An intraoperative cystoscopy was performed in 86% undergoing cystocele repair or apical surgery. CONCLUSION: The quality of care for women with POP can be feasibly measured with QIs. Processes of care were deficient in many areas, and our findings can serve as a basis for quality improvement interventions.