Nazema Y Siddiqui1, Gena C Dunivan2, Christopher J Chermansky3, Catherine S Bradley4. 1. From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 3. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are few quality measures that allow for optimization of care for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In coordination with the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), a prior group agreed upon health care provider-reported data elements that are important for large-scale quality measurement. The primary objective was to review existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement tools for POP and consider where improvements are needed for inclusion in a quality measurement tool. A secondary objective was to discuss enhanced strategies to improve the quality of care for women with mesh complications. METHODS: The AUGS Scientific Committee convened a 1-day meeting titled "Deciding our Future: Consensus Conference on Prolapse Outcomes and Best Practices for Mesh Complications." Speakers discussed the current state of POP outcome measurement and meaningful ways of measuring and improving quality. Furthermore, past and future work for standardization of care regarding mesh complications was discussed. RESULTS: Conference participants included invited speakers, representatives from AUGS and partner societies, 5 patient representatives from the AUGS Patient Advisory Committee, and 38 registered participants from academic institutions, community practices, and industry. Participants developed a roadmap for incorporating PROs into a national POP quality improvement registry. Participants also discussed important gaps in our knowledge of treatment of mesh complications and previewed proposed terminology and treatment algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Using appropriate methodology, existing PRO measurement tools can be collapsed into one concise tool for POP quality measurement. Over the next year, work will continue toward this goal. Proposed updates to mesh terminology and treatment algorithms will be published separately.
OBJECTIVES: There are few quality measures that allow for optimization of care for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In coordination with the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), a prior group agreed upon health care provider-reported data elements that are important for large-scale quality measurement. The primary objective was to review existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement tools for POP and consider where improvements are needed for inclusion in a quality measurement tool. A secondary objective was to discuss enhanced strategies to improve the quality of care for women with mesh complications. METHODS: The AUGS Scientific Committee convened a 1-day meeting titled "Deciding our Future: Consensus Conference on Prolapse Outcomes and Best Practices for Mesh Complications." Speakers discussed the current state of POP outcome measurement and meaningful ways of measuring and improving quality. Furthermore, past and future work for standardization of care regarding mesh complications was discussed. RESULTS: Conference participants included invited speakers, representatives from AUGS and partner societies, 5 patient representatives from the AUGS Patient Advisory Committee, and 38 registered participants from academic institutions, community practices, and industry. Participants developed a roadmap for incorporating PROs into a national POP quality improvement registry. Participants also discussed important gaps in our knowledge of treatment of mesh complications and previewed proposed terminology and treatment algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Using appropriate methodology, existing PRO measurement tools can be collapsed into one concise tool for POP quality measurement. Over the next year, work will continue toward this goal. Proposed updates to mesh terminology and treatment algorithms will be published separately.
Authors: Mary Anna Denman; W Thomas Gregory; Sarah H Boyles; Virginia Smith; S Renee Edwards; Amanda L Clark Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Dennis Miller; Vincent Lucente; Elizabeth Babin; Patricia Beach; Peter Jones; David Robinson Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Gena C Dunivan; Andrew L Sussman; J Eric Jelovsek; Vivian Sung; Uduak U Andy; Alicia Ballard; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cindy L Amundsen; Christopher J Chermansky; Carla M Bann; Donna Mazloomdoost; Rebecca G Rogers Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Fréderic Caquant; Pierre Collinet; Philippe Debodinance; Juan Berrocal; Olivier Garbin; Claude Rosenthal; Henri Clave; Richard Villet; Bernard Jacquetin; Michel Cosson Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 1.730