Literature DB >> 8479066

The appropriateness of hysterectomy. A comparison of care in seven health plans. Health Maintenance Organization Quality of Care Consortium.

S J Bernstein1, E A McGlynn, A L Siu, C P Roth, M J Sherwood, J W Keesey, J Kosecoff, N R Hicks, R H Brook.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a method for comparing the appropriateness of hysterectomy use in different health plans.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Seven managed care organizations. PATIENTS: Random sample of all nonemergency, non-oncological hysterectomies performed in the seven managed care organizations over a 1-year period. Patients who were not continuously enrolled in a plan for 2 years prior to their hysterectomy were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women undergoing hysterectomy in each plan for inappropriate clinical reasons according to ratings derived from a panel of managed care physicians.
RESULTS: Overall, about 16% of women underwent hysterectomy for reasons judged to be clinically inappropriate. Only one plan had significantly more hysterectomies rated inappropriate compared with the group mean (27%, unadjusted). Adjusting for age and race did not affect the rankings of the plans and had little effect on the numeric results.
CONCLUSION: The rates of inappropriate use of hysterectomies are similar to those for other procedures and vary to a small degree among health plans. This information may be useful to purchasers when they consider which health plans to offer their employees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8479066     DOI: 10.1001/jama.269.18.2398

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  17 in total

1.  Public disclosure of performance data: learning from the US experience.

Authors:  M N Marshall; P G Shekelle; S Leatherman; R H Brook
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-03

2.  Hysterectomy prevalence by Hispanic ethnicity: evidence from a national survey.

Authors:  Kate M Brett; Jenny A Higgins
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  How good is the quality of health care in the United States? 1998.

Authors:  Mark A Schuster; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Robert H Brook
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 4.  Commentary: A systematic review of health care efficiency measures.

Authors:  Leah F Binder; Barbara Rudolph
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  Using the Knowledge Base of Health Services Research to Redefine Health Care Systems.

Authors:  Robert H Brook; Mary E Vaiana
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  [Evolutionary quality assurance. A new concept for improving process and outcome quality].

Authors:  D Köhler; G Goeckenjan; J Rünz
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-03-15

7.  A matter of opinion about hysterectomies: experts' and practicing community gynecologists' ratings of appropriateness.

Authors:  N A Bickell; J Earp; A T Evans; S J Bernstein
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 8.  Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of care.

Authors:  N R Hicks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-09-17

9.  Vaginal hysterectomy at jos university teaching hospital, jos, Nigeria.

Authors:  Ph Daru; A Magaji; D Nyango; J Karshima; Ic Pam; I Shambe
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2011-07

10.  A Comparison Between Non-Descent Vaginal Hysterectomy and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Dhivya Balakrishnan; Gharphalia Dibyajyoti
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-01-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.