The Role of Self-Classified Race/Ethnicity, Insurance Status, and Hospital Type in Benign Hysterectomy.

Maya A Wright, Alan C Kinlaw, Asha B McClurg, Erin Carey, Kemi M Doll, Anissa I Vines, Andrew F Olshan, Whitney R Robinson
{"title":"The Role of Self-Classified Race/Ethnicity, Insurance Status, and Hospital Type in Benign Hysterectomy.","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":"10.1177/15409996251370641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> To explore the associations of self-classified race/ethnicity, insurance status, and hospital type with updated appropriateness ratings of hysterectomy among premenopausal patients. <b><i>Study Design:</i></b> The study population consisted of patients 18-44 years of age who received a hysterectomy for benign and non-obstetric gynecological conditions between October 2014 and December 2017. Structured and unstructured data were abstracted from electronic medical records (EMR). We estimated weighted prevalence differences (PD<sub>w</sub>), ratios (PR<sub>w</sub>), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between self-classified race/ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Black, and Non-Hispanic White), insurance status at time of surgery (uninsured, Medicaid, and private insurance), and hospital type (non-academic and academic) and the Wright appropriateness rating (inappropriate, ambiguous, and appropriate). To assess potential missing data bias, we conducted sensitivity analyses with stratification of prevalence estimates by a proxy for EMR completeness (1, ≥2 preoperative notes from the primary surgeon). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Among the 1,613 hysterectomies analyzed, 26.5% received an inappropriate rating, 15.8% an ambiguous rating, and 57.7% an appropriate rating. Patients with Medicaid had 17.2% (95% CI = -22.3%, -12.1%) lower prevalence of inappropriate ratings compared with patients with private insurance. Surgeries at non-academic medical centers had 20.4% (95% CI = 17.0%, 23.8%) higher prevalence of inappropriate ratings compared with surgeries at academic medical centers. In sensitivity analyses, among surgeries with ≥2 preoperative notes from the primary surgeon, the prevalence of an inappropriate rating was similar between non-academic and academic medical centers (PD<sub>w</sub> = -2.1%, 95% CI = -6.8%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Associations between insurance status, hospital type, and inappropriate rating may be partially explained by EMR completeness. EMR completeness, provider documentation, and data management are important determinants of equitable clinical care. Additional research to improve assessment of appropriate hysterectomy care and efforts to improve EMR completeness are important next steps in gynecological research.</p>","PeriodicalId":520699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health (2002)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","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/10.1177/15409996251370641","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

Objective: To explore the associations of self-classified race/ethnicity, insurance status, and hospital type with updated appropriateness ratings of hysterectomy among premenopausal patients. Study Design: The study population consisted of patients 18-44 years of age who received a hysterectomy for benign and non-obstetric gynecological conditions between October 2014 and December 2017. Structured and unstructured data were abstracted from electronic medical records (EMR). We estimated weighted prevalence differences (PDw), ratios (PRw), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between self-classified race/ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Black, and Non-Hispanic White), insurance status at time of surgery (uninsured, Medicaid, and private insurance), and hospital type (non-academic and academic) and the Wright appropriateness rating (inappropriate, ambiguous, and appropriate). To assess potential missing data bias, we conducted sensitivity analyses with stratification of prevalence estimates by a proxy for EMR completeness (1, ≥2 preoperative notes from the primary surgeon). Results: Among the 1,613 hysterectomies analyzed, 26.5% received an inappropriate rating, 15.8% an ambiguous rating, and 57.7% an appropriate rating. Patients with Medicaid had 17.2% (95% CI = -22.3%, -12.1%) lower prevalence of inappropriate ratings compared with patients with private insurance. Surgeries at non-academic medical centers had 20.4% (95% CI = 17.0%, 23.8%) higher prevalence of inappropriate ratings compared with surgeries at academic medical centers. In sensitivity analyses, among surgeries with ≥2 preoperative notes from the primary surgeon, the prevalence of an inappropriate rating was similar between non-academic and academic medical centers (PDw = -2.1%, 95% CI = -6.8%). Conclusions: Associations between insurance status, hospital type, and inappropriate rating may be partially explained by EMR completeness. EMR completeness, provider documentation, and data management are important determinants of equitable clinical care. Additional research to improve assessment of appropriate hysterectomy care and efforts to improve EMR completeness are important next steps in gynecological research.

自我分类的种族/民族、保险状况和医院类型在良性子宫切除术中的作用。
目的:探讨自我分类的种族/民族、保险状况和医院类型与绝经前患者子宫切除术适宜性评分的关系。研究设计:研究人群包括在2014年10月至2017年12月期间因良性和非产科妇科疾病接受子宫切除术的18-44岁患者。从电子病历(EMR)中提取结构化和非结构化数据。我们估计了自我分类的种族/民族(西班牙裔、非西班牙裔黑人和非西班牙裔白人)、手术时的保险状况(无保险、医疗补助和私人保险)、医院类型(非学术和学术)和怀特适宜性评级(不适当、模糊和适当)之间的加权患病率差异(PDw)、比率(PRw)和95%置信区间(CIs)。为了评估潜在的缺失数据偏倚,我们进行了敏感性分析,通过EMR完整性(1、≥2个主治医生的术前记录)对患病率进行分层估计。结果:在1,613例子宫切除术中,26.5%的患者评分不合适,15.8%的患者评分不明确,57.7%的患者评分合适。与私人保险患者相比,医疗补助患者的不恰当评分发生率低17.2% (95% CI = -22.3%, -12.1%)。与学术医疗中心的手术相比,非学术医疗中心的手术有20.4% (95% CI = 17.0%, 23.8%)的不适当评分发生率高。在敏感性分析中,在主治医生术前记录≥2的手术中,非学术医疗中心和学术医疗中心不适当评分的发生率相似(PDw = -2.1%, 95% CI = -6.8%)。结论:保险状况、医院类型和不适当评分之间的关系可以部分地用EMR完整性来解释。电子病历的完整性、提供者文档和数据管理是公平临床护理的重要决定因素。进一步的研究,以提高评估适当的子宫切除治疗和努力提高EMR的完整性是重要的下一步妇科研究。
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