Minimum standards for reporting outcomes of surgery in urogynaecology

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.

Establishment and initial implementation of the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry

“…The International Continence Society-International Urogynaecological Association Mesh Complication Classification Scale [19,20] is being used to capture complications, this being one of the first registries to do so. Additionally, capturing PROMs and proposed data linkage to State or Commonwealth datasets will provide a more comprehensive perspective and holistic picture of patient outcomes and quality of life.…”

Gaining consensus on clinical quality outcomes for eating disorders: Framework for the development of an Australian national minimum dataset

“…A review of the Delphi method suggests that when using a sample size of 20 or more participants, the research is likely to produce stable findings 59. The application of the Delphi methodology to determine an MDS for physical health conditions has used sample sizes of between 20 and 100 44 45 60–67. Given our aim to include broad representation from diverse expertise across the country, we endeavoured to recruit a final sample size of at least 50 individuals to form the expert panel.…”

Making the best use of clinical datasets: with examples from urogynaecology

“…This can be achieved using a Delphi process. 11 Patients, again, are a diverse group of people. It is important that they are included in the design of any database because they are the ones experiencing the condition, so should therefore be involved in the outcome collection.…”

“…A minimum dataset can help to ensure appropriate information is included. This can be achieved using a Delphi process 11 . Patients, again, are a diverse group of people.…”

“…As such, the idea of having ‘core’ and ‘extended’ datasets becomes important. Core data 11 give the minimum data and this would be determined from expert opinion. Additional data may be collected for a limited period to answer specific questions; for example, each year a different aspect could be studied, similar to the MBBRACE‐UK (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK) report 20 .…”