Moiuri Siddique1, Nemi Shah2, Amy Park2, Beatrice Chen3, Stephen Emery3, Tommaso Falcone4, Rebecca Margulies5, Charles Rardin6, Cheryl Iglesia2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC. Electronic address: Moiuri.Siddique@medstar.net. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Women's Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, California. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Privileging and credentialing requirements are determined by medical staff leadership at the hospital level to ensure clinicians provide safe healthcare services. No standardized guidelines exist for gynecologic surgery. The objective of this study is to examine the variability of the criteria used to grant surgical privileges and credentials for gynecologic procedures at 5 high-volume academic and community-based US hospitals. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: Data was obtained from obtained from 5 geographically diverse hospital systems. INTERVENTION: We examined criteria for designating core gynecologic privileges, credentialing, and other training requirements as well as minimum and annual case numbers for initial granting and maintenance of surgical privileges. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Major inconsistencies in privileging were found across the 5 institutions. Hospitals varied widely in procedures designated as core versus those requiring advanced training. Institutions greatly contrasted in the case numbers and temporal factors used to define experience. Of particular concern was absent privileging criteria for 38.4% to 76.9% of minor procedures, 26.7% to 46.7% of endoscopic procedures, and 6.67% to 56.7% of major procedures. Initial and maintenance privileging requirements for special procedures (i.e., robotic-assisted surgery) were likewise discrepant, with minimum annual case numbers ranging from 3 to 48 across hospitals. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists in the criteria used by hospitals for granting and maintaining surgical privileges for gynecologic procedures. Standardization will likely require efforts at a national leadership level.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Privileging and credentialing requirements are determined by medical staff leadership at the hospital level to ensure clinicians provide safe healthcare services. No standardized guidelines exist for gynecologic surgery. The objective of this study is to examine the variability of the criteria used to grant surgical privileges and credentials for gynecologic procedures at 5 high-volume academic and community-based US hospitals. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: Data was obtained from obtained from 5 geographically diverse hospital systems. INTERVENTION: We examined criteria for designating core gynecologic privileges, credentialing, and other training requirements as well as minimum and annual case numbers for initial granting and maintenance of surgical privileges. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Major inconsistencies in privileging were found across the 5 institutions. Hospitals varied widely in procedures designated as core versus those requiring advanced training. Institutions greatly contrasted in the case numbers and temporal factors used to define experience. Of particular concern was absent privileging criteria for 38.4% to 76.9% of minor procedures, 26.7% to 46.7% of endoscopic procedures, and 6.67% to 56.7% of major procedures. Initial and maintenance privileging requirements for special procedures (i.e., robotic-assisted surgery) were likewise discrepant, with minimum annual case numbers ranging from 3 to 48 across hospitals. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists in the criteria used by hospitals for granting and maintaining surgical privileges for gynecologic procedures. Standardization will likely require efforts at a national leadership level.
Authors: P Rusch; T Ind; R Kimmig; A Maggioni; J Ponce; V Zanagnolo; P J Coronado; J Verguts; E Lambaudie; H Falconer; J W Collins; Rhm Verheijen Journal: Facts Views Vis Obgyn Date: 2019-03