Anger J.T.,Cedars Sinai Medical Center |
Scott V.C.S.,University of California at Los Angeles |
Kiyosaki K.,Hawaii Medical |
Khan A.A.,University of California at Los Angeles |
And 8 more authors.
International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction | Year: 2013
Introduction and hypothesis A paucity of data exists addressing the quality of care provided to women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We sought to develop a means of measuring this quality through the development of quality-of-care indicators (QIs). Methods QIs were modeled after those previously described in the Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project. The indicators were then presented to a panel of nine experts. Using the RAND Appropriateness Method, we analyzed each indicator's preliminary rankings. A forum was then held in which each indicator was thoroughly discussed by the panelists as a group, after which panelists individually re-rated the indicators. QIs with median scores of at least 7 were considered valid. Results QIs were developed that addressed screening, diagnosis, work-up, and both nonsurgical and surgical management. Areas of controversy included whether screening should be performed to identify prolapse, whether pessary users should undergo a vaginal examination by a health professional every 6 months versus annually, and whether a colpocleisis should be offered to older women planning to undergo surgery for POP. Fourteen out of 21 potential indicators were rated as valid for pelvic organ prolapse (median score ≥7). Conclusion We developed and rated 14 potential quality indicators for the care of women with POP. Once these QIs are tested for feasibility they can be used on a larger scale to measure and compare the care provided to women with prolapse in different clinical settings. © The International Urogynecological Association 2013.