Download

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback7 pages Free

Objective: To evaluate the appropriateness of recommendations for hysterectomies done for nonemergency and nononcologic indications. Methods: The authors assessed the appropriateness of recommendations for hysterectomy for 497 women who had the operation between August 1993 and July 1995 in one of nine capitated medical groups in Southern California. Appropriateness was assessed using two sets of criteria, the first developed by a multispecialty expert physician panel using the RAND/University of California-Los Angeles appropriateness method, and the second consisting of the ACOG criteria sets for hysterectomies. The main outcome measure was the appropriateness of recommendation for hysterectomy, based on expert panel ratings and ACOG criteria sets. Results: The most common indications for hysterectomy were leiomyomata (60% of hysterectomies), pelvic relaxation (11%), pain (9%), and bleeding (8%). Three hundred sixty-seven (70%) of the hysterectomies did not meet the level of care recommended by the expert panel and were judged to be recommended inappropriately. ACOG criteria sets were applicable to 71 women, and 54 (76%) did not meet ACOG criteria for hysterectomy. The most common reasons recommendations for hysterectomies were considered inappropriate were lack of adequate diagnostic evaluation and failure to try alternative treatments before hysterectomy. Conclusion: Hysterectomy is often recommended for indications judged inappropriate. Patients and physicians should work together to ensure that proper diagnostic evaluation has been done and appropriate treatments considered before hysterectomy is recommended.

Posted here with permission from Obstetrics and Gynecology. Copyright © 2000 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Originally published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 95, No. 2, 2000, pp. 199-205.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.