Quality Assurance Indicators and Short-Term Outcome of Hysterectomy

Abstract

Fifteen gynecologic quality assurance indicators recently published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were applied to a previously reported hysterectomy data base Chart reviews were performed for the most recent 257 cases in the data base, representing an 18-month interval. The indicators were divided into two groups: those intended to identify morbidity and mortality and those intended to screen for appropriateness of care. Rates of acutal morbidity and cases that failed to meet published criteria sets for hysterectomy were determined by chart review regardless of the presence of a quality assurance indicator. A total of 135 indicators were identified in 114 (44%) of these 257 cases, including 64 patients (25%) with morbidity indicators and 50 (19%) with appropriateness indicators. Actual morbidity was correctly identified in al 64 cases in which morbidity indicators were present. Three cases with significant morbidity were identified by chart review but not identified by the indicators, yielding positive and negative predictive values of 100 and 98%, and an overall accuracy of 99% for morbidity indicators. By contrast, 14 of the 50 cases in which appropriateness indicators were present actually failed to meet published criteria sets. An additional seven cases failing to meet criteria sets were identified by chart review and not identified by the indicators, yielding a positive predictive value of 28%, a negative predictive value of 28%, a negative predictive value of 97%, and an overall accuracy of 83% for appropriateness indicators.