BACKGROUND: The Board of the Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology established a Quality Group for Gynecological Surgery connected with benign diseases with one member from each of the Nordic countries. The aim was to suggest guidelines for the quality assessment of such surgery. METHODS: A questionnaire study was carried out in all Nordic gynecological departments concerning quality assessment and the elaboration of guidelines. RESULTS: Most of the departments (80.4%) want to participate in establishing and maintaining a quality register. The majority of responders strongly agree that registers detect areas of satisfactory as well as unsatisfactory quality, and are necessary for comparison of treatment results among departments. Several departments are hesitant about joining a register if it will incur financial costs (59.5%) and/or extra work (47.6%). Most departments (71.4-94.6%) consider that all major gynecological surgery should be monitored. The departments agree that pre-, per-, and post hospital patient events should be included in any register. These results are incorporated into common general guidelines for quality assessment of gynecological surgery in the Nordic countries. CONCLUSION: The gynecological departments in the Nordic countries agree on the necessity for and the main content of registers for quality assessment, but the interest drops when extra work is needed, and if the departments have to pay to participate, which emphasize the need for simple and low-cost registers. In accordance with the results of the Nordic questionnaire, common general quality guidelines for gynecological surgery are suggested.
BACKGROUND: The Board of the Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology established a Quality Group for Gynecological Surgery connected with benign diseases with one member from each of the Nordic countries. The aim was to suggest guidelines for the quality assessment of such surgery. METHODS: A questionnaire study was carried out in all Nordic gynecological departments concerning quality assessment and the elaboration of guidelines. RESULTS: Most of the departments (80.4%) want to participate in establishing and maintaining a quality register. The majority of responders strongly agree that registers detect areas of satisfactory as well as unsatisfactory quality, and are necessary for comparison of treatment results among departments. Several departments are hesitant about joining a register if it will incur financial costs (59.5%) and/or extra work (47.6%). Most departments (71.4-94.6%) consider that all major gynecological surgery should be monitored. The departments agree that pre-, per-, and post hospital patient events should be included in any register. These results are incorporated into common general guidelines for quality assessment of gynecological surgery in the Nordic countries. CONCLUSION: The gynecological departments in the Nordic countries agree on the necessity for and the main content of registers for quality assessment, but the interest drops when extra work is needed, and if the departments have to pay to participate, which emphasize the need for simple and low-cost registers. In accordance with the results of the Nordic questionnaire, common general quality guidelines for gynecological surgery are suggested.