Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the use of Clavien-Dindo classification and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire as quality indicators in gynecologic endoscopy

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Over the last few decades, laparoscopy has become a standard procedure within gynecological surgery. Validated quality indicators for the determination of the objective (perioperative complications) and subjective (patient satisfaction) quality of treatment as a surrogate parameter for the success of the treatment have so far found no regular application in the clinical routine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification for postoperative complications and the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15) as tools in the evaluation of endoscopic therapies in clinical routine.

Methods

Retrospectively, perioperative complications using the CD classification and patient satisfaction utilizing the PPE-15 were reviewed for a total of 212 consecutive patients at a gynecologic endoscopic referral center (Agaplesion Diakonie Kliniken, Kassel, Germany) in September 2018.

Results

An overall complication rate of 13.21% (28 out of 138 patients) was observed. Five patients (2.36%) had complications grade III and above according to the CD classification system. 138 patients out of 212 chose to answer the PPE-15 (return rate 65.01%). 112 patients (81.16%) reported about problems during their treatment in our hospital in their PPE-15. “Purpose of medicines not explained” was the most mentioned item (28.99%) by patients during their hospital stay.

Conclusion

CD classification and PPE-15 may be helpful instruments to evaluate the quality of care in gynecology. The application of both instruments for the assessment of treatment quality in clinical routine should be further investigated in prospective studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gerabek WE, Haage BD, Keil G, Wegner W (2005) Enzyklopädie Medizingeschichte. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boesch CE, Umek W (2009) Effects of wound closure on wound healing in gynecologic surgery: a systematic literature review. J Reprod Med 54(3):139–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Szeverényi P, Bacskó G, Hetey M, Kovácsné TZ, Csiszár P, Kórösi T, Borsos A (1999) The healing process following gynecologic laparoscopy: data on the significance of psychological factors. Orv Hetil 140(19):1043–1048

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Counte MA, Howard SW, Chang L, Aaronson W (2019) Global advances in value-based payment and their implications for global health management education, development, and practice. Front Public Health 6:379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Richtlinie zu planungsrelevanten Qualitätsindikatoren: Veröffentlichung des Berichts (2017). https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-5374/2018-10-18_PlanQI-RL-QI-Bericht-2017_Anlage-2_gyn-OP.xlsx

  6. Maurer PP, Ballmer PE (2004) Hospital readmissions–are they predictable and avoidable? Swiss Med Wkly 134(41–42):606–611

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alper E, O`Malley TA, Greenwald J (2019) Hospital discharge and readmission. UpToDate.

  8. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Radosa MP, Meyberg-Solomayer G, Radosa J, Vorwergk J, Oettler K, Mothes A, Baum S, Juhasz-Boess I, Petri E, Solomayer EF, Runnebaum IB (2014) Standardised registration of surgical complications in laparoscopic-gynaecological therapeutic procedures using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 74(8):752–758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S (2002) The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care 14(5):353–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chi DS, Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR (2004) Ten-year experience with laparoscopy on a gynecologic oncology service: analysis of risk factors for complications and conversion to laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1138–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Härkki-Sirén P, Kurki T (1997) A nationwide analysis of laparoscopic complications. Obstet Gynecol 89:108–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Besser L, Schwarzman P, Mastrolia SA, Rotem R, Leron E, Yohay D, Weintraub AY (2018) Comparative analysis of early adverse events of pelvic organ prolapse repair with or without transvaginal mesh using Clavien-Dindo classification. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 142(1):108–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Katayama H, Kurokawa Y, Nakamura K, Ito H, Kanemitsu Y, Masuda N, Tsubosa Y, Satoh T, Yokomizo A, Fukuda H, Sasako M (2016) Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today 46(6):668–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mothes AR, Radosa MP, Runnebaum IB (2015) Systematic assessment of surgical complications in laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 194:228–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pryor A, Mann WJ Jr, Bates AT (2019) Complications of laparoscopic surgery. UpToDate.

  18. Di Saverio S, Birindelli A, Broek RT, Davies JR, Mandrioli M, Sallinen V (2018) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: not for all patients, not for all surgeons, not in all centres. Updates Surg 70(4):557–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zuckerman RB, Sheingold SH, Orav EJ, Ruhter J, Epstein AM (2016) Readmissions, observation, and the hospital readmissions reduction program. N Engl J Med 374:1543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW (2003) The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med 138:161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Were MC, Li X, Kesterson J, Cadwallader J, Aswira C, Khan B, Rosenman MB (2009) Adequacy of hospital discharge summaries in documenting tests with pending results and outpatient follow-up providers. J Gen Intern Med 24:1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Delbanco T, Gerteis M (2019) A patient-centered view of the clinician-patient relationship. UpToDate.

  23. Wirtz M, Farin E, Bengel J, Jäckel WH, Hämmerer D, Gerdes N (2005) IRES-24 Patientenfragebogen. Diagnostica 51:75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Magnusson I, Jeffcoat MK, Donaldson D, Otterbom IL, Henriksson J (2004) Quantification and analysis of pain in nonsurgical scaling and/or root planing. J Am Dent Assoc 135(12):1747–1754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S, Roberts M, Moloney TW, McMullen W, Walker JD, Delbanco TL (1991) Patients evaluate their hospital care: a national survey. Health Aff 10(4):254–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pelletier D, Green-Demers I, Collerette P, Heberer M (2019) Modeling the communication-satisfaction relationship in hospital patients. SAGE Open Med 7:2050312119847924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Staniszewska S, Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton L (2012) Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution. Patient 5(2):79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eberlein-Gonska M, Costa SD (2015) Qualitätsmanagement-integraler Bestandteil der täglichen Arbeit? Dtsch Ärztebl 112(8):A316

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harrison R, Walton M, Kelly P, Manias E, Jorm C, Smith-Merry J, Iedema R, Luxford K, Dyda A (2018) Hospitalization from the patient perspective: a data linkage study of adults in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care 30(5):358–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leonardsen AL, Grøndahl VA, Ghanima W, Storeheier E, Schönbeck A, Løken TA, Bakken NCM, Letting GS, Holst R, Jelsness-Jørgensen LP (2017) Evaluating patient experiences in decentralised acute care using the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire; methodological and clinical findings. BMC Health Serv Res 17(1):685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Richards L, Healey M, Cheng C, Dior U (2018) Laparoscopic oophorectomy to treat pelvic pain following ovary-sparing hysterectomy: factors associated with surgical complications and pain persistence. J Minim Invasive Gynecol S1553–4650(18):31294–31299

    Google Scholar 

  32. Radosa JC, Radosa MP, Mavrova R, Rody A, Juhasz-Böss I, Bardens D, Brün K, Solomayer EF, Baum S (2013) Five minutes of extended assisted ventilation with an open umbilical trocar valve significantly reduces postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171(1):122–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leineweber C, Marklund S, Aronsson G, Gustafsson K (2019) Work-related psychosocial risk factors and risk of disability pension among employees in health and personal care: a prospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud 93:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tan TC, Zhou H, Kelly M (2017) Nurse-physician communication—an integrated review. J Clin Nurs 26(23–24):3974–3989

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Gynecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany

    Sebastian Findeklee, Julia Caroline Radosa & Erich Franz Solomayer

  2. Department for Gynecology, Agaplesion Diakonie Kliniken, Kassel, Germany

    Stefanie Schafhaupt, Shadi Younes & Marc Philipp Radosa

  3. Department for Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20a, Building 6, 01403, Leipzig, Germany

    Shadi Younes & Marc Philipp Radosa

  4. Department of Radiology, Dresden University Hospital, Dresden, Germany

    Christoph G. Radosa

  5. Department for Gynecology and Obstetrics, St. Georg Hospital Eisenach, Eisenach, Germany

    Anke Mothes

Authors
  1. Sebastian Findeklee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Caroline Radosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefanie Schafhaupt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shadi Younes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christoph G. Radosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anke Mothes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Erich Franz Solomayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marc Philipp Radosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Philipp Radosa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted in concordance to the ethical standards of the institution.

Informed consent

Only retrospective data from patient records were analyzed without any intervention. All patients gave their agreement in analyzing and publishing data anonymously before treatment.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

PPE-15 items

1. If you asked important questions to a doctor, did you get clear answers?

2. If you asked important questions to nurses, did you get clear answers?

3. Sometimes it happens that a doctor or nurse says something, and another doctor or nurse tells you something else. Did that happen to you?

4. If you were worried or worried about your condition or treatment, did a doctor discuss it with you?

5. Did it happen that doctors in your presence talked about you as if you were not there?

6. Could you participate in your treatment?

7. Did you have the feeling of being treated with care and attention during your stay in hospital?

8. If you were worried or worried about your condition or treatment, did the nurses discuss it with you?

9. Was it easy to find someone from the hospital staff who talked to you about your concerns and concerns?

10. Did you have pain during this hospital stay?

11. Did your family or other people close to you have ample opportunity to talk to your doctor?

12. Has anyone informed your family or other people who are close to you how recovery can help you?

13. Did someone explain the purpose of the medication that you should take at home understandably?

14. Has anyone told you what side effects of these medicines you should look at home?

15. Has anyone told you what symptoms you should be aware of at home with regard to your illness or surgery?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Findeklee, S., Radosa, J.C., Schafhaupt, S. et al. Evaluating the use of Clavien-Dindo classification and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire as quality indicators in gynecologic endoscopy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300, 1317–1324 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05302-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05302-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation