Practice-Level Severity Case Mix and Treatment Patterns for Premenopausal Noncancerous Hysterectomy.

Joacy G Mathias, Natalie A Rivadeneira, Kemi M Doll, Chanelle J Howe, Annie Green Howard, Mollie E Wood, Lauren Anderson, Michael Green, Erin T Carey, Evan Myers, Timothy S Carey, Til Stürmer, Whitney R Robinson
{"title":"Practice-Level Severity Case Mix and Treatment Patterns for Premenopausal Noncancerous Hysterectomy.","authors":"Joacy G Mathias, Natalie A Rivadeneira, Kemi M Doll, Chanelle J Howe, Annie Green Howard, Mollie E Wood, Lauren Anderson, Michael Green, Erin T Carey, Evan Myers, Timothy S Carey, Til Stürmer, Whitney R Robinson","doi":"10.1177/15409996251360548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Hysterectomy for noncancerous conditions is a patient-preference-sensitive procedure. Therefore, gynecological practices may provide hysterectomy at varying levels of symptom severity. We assess whether practice-level severity case mix associates with segregation of patients by race and ethnicity or insurance status. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In this case series, we analyzed electronic health records of 1,590 noncancerous hysterectomy patients across 20 clinical practices within a large health care system in the U.S. South (2014-2017). By abstracting 12-month presurgical medical notes, we developed severity scores for bleeding, pain, and bulk symptoms. The practice-level severity case mix measure distinguished six practices where ≥18% of patients had below median scores for bleeding, pain, and bulk. Log-binomial models estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for severity case mix by race and ethnicity and insurance, adjusting for age, body mass index, gynecological conditions, previous abdominal surgeries, and prior uterine sparing treatments. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients at practices with lower severity case mix differed in surgical indications, had fewer uterine-sparing treatments before undergoing hysterectomy, and were largely (96%) privately insured. Compared to White patients, Hispanic patients underwent hysterectomy less frequently at lower severity practices (PR: 0.52 [0.33-0.82]) while Black patients showed no difference based on the point estimate (PR: 1.00 [0.87-1.14]). Publicly-insured and uninsured patients were less likely than privately-insured patients to receive hysterectomy at lower severity practices (PR: 0.13 [0.05-0.36] and PR: 0.28 [0.12-0.68], respectively). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Publicly insured and uninsured patients receiving hysterectomy-including nearly all Hispanic patients-were concentrated in practices with a higher symptom severity case mix.</p>","PeriodicalId":520699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health (2002)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health (2002)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15409996251360548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hysterectomy for noncancerous conditions is a patient-preference-sensitive procedure. Therefore, gynecological practices may provide hysterectomy at varying levels of symptom severity. We assess whether practice-level severity case mix associates with segregation of patients by race and ethnicity or insurance status. Methods: In this case series, we analyzed electronic health records of 1,590 noncancerous hysterectomy patients across 20 clinical practices within a large health care system in the U.S. South (2014-2017). By abstracting 12-month presurgical medical notes, we developed severity scores for bleeding, pain, and bulk symptoms. The practice-level severity case mix measure distinguished six practices where ≥18% of patients had below median scores for bleeding, pain, and bulk. Log-binomial models estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for severity case mix by race and ethnicity and insurance, adjusting for age, body mass index, gynecological conditions, previous abdominal surgeries, and prior uterine sparing treatments. Results: Patients at practices with lower severity case mix differed in surgical indications, had fewer uterine-sparing treatments before undergoing hysterectomy, and were largely (96%) privately insured. Compared to White patients, Hispanic patients underwent hysterectomy less frequently at lower severity practices (PR: 0.52 [0.33-0.82]) while Black patients showed no difference based on the point estimate (PR: 1.00 [0.87-1.14]). Publicly-insured and uninsured patients were less likely than privately-insured patients to receive hysterectomy at lower severity practices (PR: 0.13 [0.05-0.36] and PR: 0.28 [0.12-0.68], respectively). Conclusions: Publicly insured and uninsured patients receiving hysterectomy-including nearly all Hispanic patients-were concentrated in practices with a higher symptom severity case mix.

绝经前非癌性子宫切除术的实践级别严重病例组合和治疗模式。
背景:非癌性子宫切除术是一种患者偏好敏感的手术。因此,妇科实践可提供不同程度的症状严重程度的子宫切除术。我们评估实践级别的严重病例混合是否与按种族和民族或保险状况隔离的患者相关。方法:在本病例系列中,我们分析了美国南部一个大型医疗保健系统中20个临床实践中1590名非癌性子宫切除术患者的电子健康记录(2014-2017)。通过抽取12个月的手术前医疗记录,我们制定了出血、疼痛和整体症状的严重程度评分。实践级别严重程度病例混合测量区分出6种实践,其中≥18%的患者在出血、疼痛和肿胀方面的评分低于中位数。对数二项模型估计严重病例混合的患病率(pr),根据种族、民族和保险,调整年龄、体重指数、妇科状况、既往腹部手术和既往子宫保留治疗。结果:在较严重病例组合的实践中,患者的手术指征不同,在子宫切除术前保留子宫的治疗较少,并且大部分(96%)是私人保险。与白人患者相比,西班牙裔患者在较低的严重程度下进行子宫切除术的频率较低(PR: 0.52[0.33-0.82]),而黑人患者在点估计上没有差异(PR: 1.00[0.87-1.14])。与私人保险患者相比,公共保险患者和未保险患者接受子宫切除术的可能性较低(PR分别为0.13[0.05-0.36]和0.28[0.12-0.68])。结论:公共保险和未保险的接受子宫切除术的患者——包括几乎所有的西班牙裔患者——集中在症状严重程度较高的病例组合中。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信