OBJECTIVE: The quality of the indication for hysterectomy is widely discussed at present. In early 1996, the committee for quality assurance of the Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics decided to set up nationally accepted guidelines for the indication of hysterectomy. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. In a first step, general guidelines and actions prior to hysterectomy were defined. An expert panel of 17 Swiss gynecologists rated 74 frequent indications, twice for appropriateness (more benefits than risks for the patient), once for necessity (n = 34; procedure has to be offered or discussed with the patient), and outlined suggestions to be performed prior to hysterectomy. RESULTS: In a home rating round before the first panel met, there was an agreement rate of 48%. In 45% we observed neither agreement nor disagreement; in 7% we found disagreement. After the panel discussion 89% of experts agreed, 11% were indeterminate, and there was no disagreement. The necessity ratings showed agreement in 68% while 32% were indeterminate. The average median rating on a 1-9 point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate or necessary) was 5.4 over all single indications for appropriateness and 7.8 in single indications for necessity. After a second panel for consensus all panelists agreed on both appropriateness and necessity. CONCLUSION: The results of the appropriateness and necessity consensus presented in this paper reflect the findings of a 17 member Swiss panel. This joint effort by a medical society may be a step towards the direction of a peer controlled healthcare system.
OBJECTIVE: The quality of the indication for hysterectomy is widely discussed at present. In early 1996, the committee for quality assurance of the Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics decided to set up nationally accepted guidelines for the indication of hysterectomy. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. In a first step, general guidelines and actions prior to hysterectomy were defined. An expert panel of 17 Swiss gynecologists rated 74 frequent indications, twice for appropriateness (more benefits than risks for the patient), once for necessity (n = 34; procedure has to be offered or discussed with the patient), and outlined suggestions to be performed prior to hysterectomy. RESULTS: In a home rating round before the first panel met, there was an agreement rate of 48%. In 45% we observed neither agreement nor disagreement; in 7% we found disagreement. After the panel discussion 89% of experts agreed, 11% were indeterminate, and there was no disagreement. The necessity ratings showed agreement in 68% while 32% were indeterminate. The average median rating on a 1-9 point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate or necessary) was 5.4 over all single indications for appropriateness and 7.8 in single indications for necessity. After a second panel for consensus all panelists agreed on both appropriateness and necessity. CONCLUSION: The results of the appropriateness and necessity consensus presented in this paper reflect the findings of a 17 member Swiss panel. This joint effort by a medical society may be a step towards the direction of a peer controlled healthcare system.