Impact of surgical training on the performance of proposed quality measures for hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.

BACKGROUND

Recent healthcare reform has led to increased emphasis on standardized provision of quality care. Use of government- and organization-approved quality measures is 1 way to document quality care. Quality measures, to improve care and aid in reimbursement, are being proposed and vetted in many areas of medicine.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess performance of proposed quality measures that pertain to hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse stratified by surgical training. The 4 quality measures that we assessed were (1) the documentation of offering conservative treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, (2) the quantitative assessment of pelvic organ prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification or Baden-Walker), (3) the performance of an apical support procedure, and (4) the performance of cystoscopy at time of hysterectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse from January 1 to December 31, 2008, within a large healthcare maintenance organization were identified by diagnostic and procedural codes within the electronic medical record. Medical records were reviewed extensively for demographic and clinical data that included the performance of the 4 proposed quality measures and the training background of the primary surgeon (gynecologic generalist, fellowship-trained surgeon in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, and "grandfathered" Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery). Data were analyzed with the use of descriptive statistics. Inferential statistics with chi-squared tests were used to compare performance rates of quality measures that were stratified by surgical training. Probability values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Six hundred thirty patients who underwent hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse in 2008 had complete records available for analysis. Fellowship-trained surgeons performed 302 hysterectomies for pelvic organ prolapse; grandfathered Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery surgeons performed 98 hysterectomies, and gynecologic generalist surgeons performed 230 hysterectomies. Fellowship-trained surgeons had the highest performance rates for individual quality measures (91.4-98.7%) and cumulative performance of all measures (80.8% of cases). Grandfathered Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery surgeons performed significantly fewer measures (80.6-95.9% performance rate for individual measures; 65.3% cumulatively for all measures) than fellowship-trained surgeons and more than gynecologic generalists (64.3-70% for individual measures; 29.1% cumulatively for all measures). There was an association between surgeon training background and number of hysterectomies performed for pelvic organ prolapse, with specialist surgeons performing more hysterectomies. When quality measure performance was stratified by surgeon volume, similar significant associations were found, with high-volume surgeons performing more quality measures than low-volume surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Within a large healthcare maintenance organization, fellowship-trained Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery surgeons were more likely to perform proposed quality measures in women who underwent hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse compared with those surgeons without such training. Grandfathered Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery surgeons performed measures more frequently than gynecologic generalists but less than fellowship-trained surgeons. Further study is indicated to correlate the proposed quality measures with clinical outcomes.