loading page

Benchmarking services in Outpatient hysteroscopy (OPH): a quality improvement project
  • Ayesha Mahmud,
  • Paul Smith,
  • T Justin Clark
Ayesha Mahmud
Royal Stoke University Hospital
Author Profile
Paul Smith
Birmingham Womens Hospital
Author Profile
T Justin Clark
Birmingham Womens Hospital
Author Profile

Abstract

Objective To develop a survey evaluating women’s experience of outpatient hysteroscopy (OPH) to generate data for benchmarking services in the UK Design Quality improvement project and national survey. Setting 77 hospitals with OPH services collected data over two-months. Population 5151 women Methods The OPH-Patient Satisfaction Survey (OPH-PSS) was developed using a multi-disciplinary approach. Good practice guidance in hysteroscopy and existing survey’s provided content for the survey. Pilot testing identified aspects of the women’s OPH journey that contributed to a final survey that was rolled out nationally. Main outcome variable Adequacy of OPH services reflected in women’s experience of their OPH journey and the quality of care being delivered. Results The majority (3193, 76%) of hysteroscopic procedures were diagnostic. Most women (4485, 87%) received adequate information regarding OPH with 4581 (89%) agreeing that analgesia was discussed. 5033 (97%) felt involved in their care. Women commonly reported pain (4490, 87%), but >50% regarded this as slight. 1 in 10 women felt anxious. 1217 (26%) women experienced feeling faint. Overall, >90% (4,867) of women considered the OPH service good. The mean score rating for overall level of care was considerably high (9.7/10). Comparative pain scores for OPH vs the worst pain felt during a menstrual period showed OPH to be less painful, except for endometrial ablation (P=<0.001). Conclusion This novel survey, evaluating women’s experience of OPH (OPH-PSS), provides a useful tool for benchmarking OPH services. Overall, the information provided to women and their subsequent experience of OPH is good, but pain is common.

Peer review status:Published

Apr 2021Published in European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology volume 259 on pages 211-221. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.01.028