AIMS: To develop a means to measure the quality of care provided to women treated for urinary incontinence (UI) through the development of quality-of-care indicators (QIs). METHODS: We performed an extensive literature review to develop a set of potential quality indicators for the management of UI. QIs were modeled after those previously described in the Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project. Nine experts ranked the indicators on a nine-point scale for both validity and feasibility. We analyzed preliminary rankings of each indicator using the RAND Appropriateness Method. A forum was then held in which each indicator was thoroughly discussed by the panelists as a group, after which the indicators were rated a second time individually using the same nine-point scale. RESULTS: QIs were developed that addressed screening, diagnosis, work-up, and both non-surgical and surgical management. Areas of controversy included whether routine screening for incontinence should be performed, whether urodynamics should be performed before non-surgical management is initiated, and whether cystoscopy should be part of the pre-operative work-up of uncomplicated stress incontinence. Following the expert panel discussion, 27 of 40 potential indicators were determined to be valid for UI with a median score of at least seven on a nine-point scale. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 27 quality indicators for the care of women with UI. Once these QIs are pilot-tested for feasibility, they will be applied on a larger scale to measure the quality of care provided to women with UI in the United States.
AIMS: To develop a means to measure the quality of care provided to women treated for urinary incontinence (UI) through the development of quality-of-care indicators (QIs). METHODS: We performed an extensive literature review to develop a set of potential quality indicators for the management of UI. QIs were modeled after those previously described in the Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project. Nine experts ranked the indicators on a nine-point scale for both validity and feasibility. We analyzed preliminary rankings of each indicator using the RAND Appropriateness Method. A forum was then held in which each indicator was thoroughly discussed by the panelists as a group, after which the indicators were rated a second time individually using the same nine-point scale. RESULTS: QIs were developed that addressed screening, diagnosis, work-up, and both non-surgical and surgical management. Areas of controversy included whether routine screening for incontinence should be performed, whether urodynamics should be performed before non-surgical management is initiated, and whether cystoscopy should be part of the pre-operative work-up of uncomplicated stress incontinence. Following the expert panel discussion, 27 of 40 potential indicators were determined to be valid for UI with a median score of at least seven on a nine-point scale. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 27 quality indicators for the care of women with UI. Once these QIs are pilot-tested for feasibility, they will be applied on a larger scale to measure the quality of care provided to women with UI in the United States.
Authors: Neil S Wenger; Carol P Roth; Paul G Shekelle; Roy T Young; David H Solomon; Caren J Kamberg; John T Chang; Rachel Louie; Takahiro Higashi; Catherine H MacLean; John Adams; Lillian C Min; Kurt Ransohoff; Marc Hoffing; David B Reuben Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Alexandriah Alas; Mark S Litwin; Stephanie D Chu; Catherine Bresee; Carol P Roth; Rezoana Rashid; Paul Shekelle; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Yan Chen; Jian Guo Wen; Hong Shen; Yu Tao Lv; Yan Wang; Qing Wei Wang; Yrjö T Konttinen Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Alexandriah N Alas; Catherine Bresee; Karyn Eilber; Karen Toubi; Rezoana Rashid; Carol Roth; Paul Shekelle; Neil Wenger; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Claire S Burton; Gabriela Gonzalez; Eunice Choi; Catherine Bresee; Teryl K Nuckols; Karyn S Eilber; Neil S Wenger; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Am J Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 5.928
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Victoria C S Scott; Krista Kiyosaki; Aqsa A Khan; Claudia Sevilla; Sarah E Connor; Carol P Roth; Mark S Litwin; Neil S Wenger; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-05-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Lueng Sophia Tcheung; Kristina M Cordasco; Marjorie Danz; LaShawnta Jackson; Anita Yuan; Martin L Lee; Donna L Washington Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 6.473