Jennifer T Anger1, Alexandriah Alas2, Mark S Litwin3, Stephanie D Chu4, Catherine Bresee5, Carol P Roth6, Rezoana Rashid7, Paul Shekelle8, Neil S Wenger9. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: angerj@cshs.org. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 6. Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center, RAND Corp., Santa Monica, California. 7. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 8. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Veterans Administration Greater West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center, RAND Corp., Santa Monica, California. 9. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Veterans Administration Greater West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our aim was to test the feasibility of a set of quality of care indicators for urinary incontinence and at the same time measure the care provided to women with urinary incontinence in 2 clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pilot test of a set of quality of care indicators. A total of 20 quality of care indicators were previously developed using the RAND Appropriateness Method. These quality of care indicators were used to measure care received for 137 women with a urinary incontinence diagnosis in a 120-physician hospital based multispecialty medical group. We also performed an abstraction of 146 patient records from primary care offices in Southern California. These charts were previously used as part of ACOVE (Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders Project). As a post-hoc secondary analysis, the 2 populations were compared with respect to quality, as measured by compliance with the quality of care indicators. RESULTS: In the ACOVE population, 37.7% of patients with urinary incontinence underwent a pelvic examination vs 97.8% in the multispecialty medical group. Only 15.6% of cases in the multispecialty medical group and 14.2% in ACOVE (p = 0.86) had documentation that pelvic floor exercises were offered. Relatively few women with a body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m(2) were counseled about weight loss in either population (20.9% multispecialty medical group vs 26.1% ACOVE, p = 0.76). For women undergoing sling surgery, documentation of counseling about risks was lacking and only 9.3% of eligible cases (multispecialty medical group only) had documentation of the risks of mesh. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care indicators are a feasible means to measure the care provided to women with urinary incontinence. Care varied by population studied and yet deficiencies in care were prevalent in both patient populations studied.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to test the feasibility of a set of quality of care indicators for urinary incontinence and at the same time measure the care provided to women with urinary incontinence in 2 clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pilot test of a set of quality of care indicators. A total of 20 quality of care indicators were previously developed using the RAND Appropriateness Method. These quality of care indicators were used to measure care received for 137 women with a urinary incontinence diagnosis in a 120-physician hospital based multispecialty medical group. We also performed an abstraction of 146 patient records from primary care offices in Southern California. These charts were previously used as part of ACOVE (Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders Project). As a post-hoc secondary analysis, the 2 populations were compared with respect to quality, as measured by compliance with the quality of care indicators. RESULTS: In the ACOVE population, 37.7% of patients with urinary incontinence underwent a pelvic examination vs 97.8% in the multispecialty medical group. Only 15.6% of cases in the multispecialty medical group and 14.2% in ACOVE (p = 0.86) had documentation that pelvic floor exercises were offered. Relatively few women with a body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m(2) were counseled about weight loss in either population (20.9% multispecialty medical group vs 26.1% ACOVE, p = 0.76). For women undergoing sling surgery, documentation of counseling about risks was lacking and only 9.3% of eligible cases (multispecialty medical group only) had documentation of the risks of mesh. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care indicators are a feasible means to measure the care provided to women with urinary incontinence. Care varied by population studied and yet deficiencies in care were prevalent in both patient populations studied.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eve A Kerr; Elizabeth A McGlynn; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Steven M Asch Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Joachim W Thüroff; Paul Abrams; Karl-Erik Andersson; Walter Artibani; Christopher R Chapple; Marcus J Drake; Christian Hampel; Andreas Neisius; Annette Schröder; Andrea Tubaro Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Leslee L Subak; Rena Wing; Delia Smith West; Frank Franklin; Eric Vittinghoff; Jennifer M Creasman; Holly E Richter; Deborah Myers; Kathryn L Burgio; Amy A Gorin; Judith Macer; John W Kusek; Deborah Grady Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 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