Minimum standards for reporting outcomes of surgery in urogynaecology
- PDF / 194,657 Bytes
- 4 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 99 Downloads / 200 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Minimum standards for reporting outcomes of surgery in urogynaecology Philip Toozs-Hobson 1
&
Fiona Bach 2 & J. Oliver Daly 3,4 & Niels Klarskov 5,6
Received: 1 September 2020 / Accepted: 15 October 2020 # The Author(s) 2020
Abstract Introduction and hypothesis The IUGA special interest group (SIG) identified a need for a minimum data set (MDS) to inform outcome measurements to be included and simplify data capture and standardise reporting for data collection systems. To define a minimum data set for urogynaecological surgical registries. Methods Existing registries provide an inventory of items. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify a MDS. At each stage reviewers ranked data points and used free text to comment. The rating used a scale of 0–10 at each review and a traffic light system rated the scores as desirable, highly desirable and mandatory. The scores were collated and reported back to clinicians prior to the further rounds. Outliers were highlighted and reviewers re-assessed prior to repeating the process. A comparison of the MDS was made with published outcomes. Results Reviewers were from the outcome SIG with emphasis on widespread representation. Fifteen clinicians from eight countries were involved. Four reviewers dissected the existing databases. Eighty data points were considered in four categories, background, preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative. Consensus was reached by the third round. Two points were added on review (date of surgery and urodynamics). Three background points, five preoperative points, seven intraoperative points and nine postoperative points were identified giving 24 minimum data points in the final recommendation. Conclusions An MDS has been developed for urogynaecological surgical registries. These should be mandatory points which then allow larger varying points to be assessed. These points correspond well to data points used in published papers from established databases. Keywords Surgical database surgical outcome measurement
Background On behalf of the IUGA Outcomes SIG * Philip Toozs-Hobson [email protected] 1
Birmingham Womens and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
2
Christchurch Women’s Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand
3
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sunshine Hospital, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
5
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
6
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Interest in measuring outcomes is increasing. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) [1] was formed based on the principles set out by Porter and Teisberg in their book Re-defining Healthcare [2]. In urogynaecology the Austrian TVT registry probably represents the first early attempt at collecting systematic data [3, 4]. In 2006 the first national prospective databases
Data Loading...
