Appropriateness of Hysterectomy as Treatment for Benign Gynecological Conditions.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Journal of women's health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-12 DOI:10.1089/jwh.2024.0142
Maya A Wright, Alan C Kinlaw, Asha B McClurg, Erin Carey, Kemi M Doll, Anissa I Vines, Andrew F Olshan, Whitney R Robinson
{"title":"Appropriateness of Hysterectomy as Treatment for Benign Gynecological Conditions.","authors":"Maya A Wright, Alan C Kinlaw, Asha B McClurg, Erin Carey, Kemi M Doll, Anissa I Vines, Andrew F Olshan, Whitney R Robinson","doi":"10.1089/jwh.2024.0142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> To assess the appropriateness of hysterectomies performed at a large tertiary health system using the 1997 RAND appropriateness classification system and an updated algorithm. <b><i>Design:</i></b> We abstracted structured and unstructured data from electronic medical records on patient demographics, primary indication(s) for hysterectomy, diagnosis codes associated with the hysterectomy, previous treatments, and laboratory results. <b><i>Subjects:</i></b> Patients aged 18-44 years. <b><i>Exposure:</i></b> Receipt of hysterectomy for benign and nonobstetric conditions from October 2014 to December 2017. <b><i>Main Outcome Measures:</i></b> Using these data, we provided a RAND-based (dichotomous: inappropriate/appropriate) and Wright-based (3-level: inappropriate/ambiguous/appropriate) appropriateness rating and characterized missing information patterns associated with inappropriate ratings. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We analyzed 1,829 hysterectomies across 30 nonmutually exclusive primary indications for surgery. Nearly a third (32.8%) of surgeries had only one primary indication for surgery. Using the RAND-based classifier, 31.3% of hysterectomies were rated as appropriate and 68.7% as inappropriate. Using the Wright-based algorithm, 58.1% of hysterectomies were rated as appropriate, 15.7% as ambiguous, and 26.2% as inappropriate. Missing information on diagnostic procedures was the most common characteristic related to both RAND-based (46.1%) and Wright-based (51.2%) inappropriate ratings. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The 1997 RAND classification lacked guidance for several contemporary indications, including gender-affirming care. RAND also has an outdated requirement for diagnostic surgeries such as laparoscopies, which have decreased in practice as diagnostic imaging has improved. Sensitivity analyses suggest that inappropriate surgeries cannot all be attributed to bias from missing electronic medical record data. Accurately documenting care delivery for benign gynecological conditions is key to ensuring quality and equity in gynecological care.</p>","PeriodicalId":17636,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health","volume":" ","pages":"1358-1366"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2024.0142","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the appropriateness of hysterectomies performed at a large tertiary health system using the 1997 RAND appropriateness classification system and an updated algorithm. Design: We abstracted structured and unstructured data from electronic medical records on patient demographics, primary indication(s) for hysterectomy, diagnosis codes associated with the hysterectomy, previous treatments, and laboratory results. Subjects: Patients aged 18-44 years. Exposure: Receipt of hysterectomy for benign and nonobstetric conditions from October 2014 to December 2017. Main Outcome Measures: Using these data, we provided a RAND-based (dichotomous: inappropriate/appropriate) and Wright-based (3-level: inappropriate/ambiguous/appropriate) appropriateness rating and characterized missing information patterns associated with inappropriate ratings. Results: We analyzed 1,829 hysterectomies across 30 nonmutually exclusive primary indications for surgery. Nearly a third (32.8%) of surgeries had only one primary indication for surgery. Using the RAND-based classifier, 31.3% of hysterectomies were rated as appropriate and 68.7% as inappropriate. Using the Wright-based algorithm, 58.1% of hysterectomies were rated as appropriate, 15.7% as ambiguous, and 26.2% as inappropriate. Missing information on diagnostic procedures was the most common characteristic related to both RAND-based (46.1%) and Wright-based (51.2%) inappropriate ratings. Conclusions: The 1997 RAND classification lacked guidance for several contemporary indications, including gender-affirming care. RAND also has an outdated requirement for diagnostic surgeries such as laparoscopies, which have decreased in practice as diagnostic imaging has improved. Sensitivity analyses suggest that inappropriate surgeries cannot all be attributed to bias from missing electronic medical record data. Accurately documenting care delivery for benign gynecological conditions is key to ensuring quality and equity in gynecological care.

子宫切除术治疗良性妇科疾病的适宜性。
目的:使用 1997 年兰德适当性分类系统和更新算法,评估在一家大型三级医疗系统进行的子宫切除术的适当性。设计:我们从电子病历中抽取了结构化和非结构化数据,包括患者人口统计学特征、子宫切除术的主要适应症、与子宫切除术相关的诊断代码、既往治疗和实验室结果。研究对象:年龄在 18-44 岁之间的患者。暴露:2014年10月至2017年12月期间因良性和非产科疾病接受子宫切除术的患者。主要结果测量:利用这些数据,我们提供了基于兰德(二分法:不适当/适当)和基于赖特(3 级:不适当/明确/适当)的适当性评级,并描述了与不适当评级相关的信息缺失模式。结果:我们分析了 1,829 例子宫切除术,涉及 30 个非相互排斥的主要手术适应症。近三分之一(32.8%)的手术只有一个主要手术适应症。采用兰德分类法,31.3%的子宫切除术被评为合适,68.7%的子宫切除术被评为不合适。使用基于赖特的算法,58.1%的子宫切除术被评为合适,15.7%为不明确,26.2%为不合适。诊断程序信息缺失是与基于兰德算法(46.1%)和基于赖特算法(51.2%)的不恰当评级相关的最常见特征。结论:1997年兰德分类法缺乏对包括性别确认护理在内的几种现代适应症的指导。兰德分类法对腹腔镜等诊断性手术的要求也已过时,而随着影像诊断技术的进步,这类手术在实践中已有所减少。敏感性分析表明,不适当的手术不能全部归咎于电子病历数据缺失造成的偏差。准确记录良性妇科疾病的医疗服务是确保妇科医疗质量和公平性的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of women's health
Journal of women's health 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.70%
发文量
197
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Women''s Health is the primary source of information for meeting the challenges of providing optimal health care for women throughout their lifespan. The Journal delivers cutting-edge advancements in diagnostic procedures, therapeutic protocols for the management of diseases, and innovative research in gender-based biology that impacts patient care and treatment. Journal of Women’s Health coverage includes: -Internal Medicine Endocrinology- Cardiology- Oncology- Obstetrics/Gynecology- Urogynecology- Psychiatry- Neurology- Nutrition- Sex-Based Biology- Complementary Medicine- Sports Medicine- Surgery- Medical Education- Public Policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信