Médecine

Paramédical

Autres domaines


S'abonner

Quality assessment of pelvic ultrasound for uterine myoma according to the CNGOF guidelines - 13/05/17

Doi : 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.02.006 
D. Perrot a, H. Fernandez a, b, c, J.M. Levaillant a, P. Capmas a, b,
a Service de gynécologie obstétrique, hôpital Bicêtre, GHU Sud, AP–HP, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France 
b Inserm, centre of research in epidemiology and population health (CESP), U1018, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France 
c Faculty of medicine, université Paris Sud, 94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France 

Corresponding author. Service de gynécologie obstétrique, hôpital Bicêtre, 78, avenue du Général-Leclerc, 94275 Le Kremlin-Bicetre cedex, France.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

pages 5
Iconographies 3
Vidéos 0
Autres 0

Abstract

Introduction

French guidelines regarding the minimum criteria for gynaecological ultrasound were given in a recent report in 2016, by the French National College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (CNGOF). An accurate report is essential for the optimal care of women, especially those presenting myomas. The goal of this study was to evaluate the quality of gynaecological ultrasound reports for women with type 0 to 2 uterine myomas, referring to the items contained in the French guidelines.

Materials and methods

A retrospective descriptive study was conducted from reports of ultrasounds performed in private offices and in the gynaecologic department of a hospital, between June 2014 and June 2016 (before the report of CNGOF). These reports involved women who underwent hysteroscopic resection of myoma(s). A search of validated items was conducted for all of the reports, and the missing items were analysed. The different types of practitioners and between hospital and private medical offices were also compared with Chi-square tests.

Results

A total of 138 reports were analysed; 71 were performed in private offices and 67 were performed in the gynaecologic unit of the hospital. Many items were missing in the reports, with disparities between the type of institution (private offices or hospital) and the speciality of practitioners (radiologists or gynaecologists). Specific items regarding myomas, such as the International Federation of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) classification or measurement of the posterior wall, were more often missing in reports from radiologists (89.7% and 79.5%, respectively) than in reports from gynaecologists (21.2% and 34.3%, respectively) (P<0.05). A significant difference was also observed for these data between private offices’ reports and hospitals’ reports. Items relative to ultrasound structures, such as the appearance of myomas or associated abdominal effusion, were more frequently missing in gynaecologists’ reports (88.9% and 49.5%, respectively) compared to radiologists’ reports (56.4% and 12.8%, respectively) (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Certain items are present in all the reports, while others are insufficiently mentioned. These inequalities can be explained in part by the type of practice; however, methods to overcome these difficulties must be developed. Information campaigns to educate professionals on the minimum reporting and training conducted jointly by radiologists and gynaecologist surgeons might improve reports and improve the care of women.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Evaluation, Quality, Reports, Gynaecological ultrasound, Uterine myomas


Plan


© 2017  Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 46 - N° 4

P. 317-321 - avril 2017 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Impact of clinical and/or histological chorioamnionitis on neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants: A literature review
  • E. Maisonneuve, P.-Y. Ancel, L. Foix-L’Hélias, S. Marret, G. Kayem
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Patient satisfaction regarding outpatient mastectomy in Saint-Nazaire hospital center
  • M. Simoni, F.-X. Laurent, S. Evrard, L. Bruneau, N. Allio, M. Randet

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’achat d’article à l’unité est indisponible à l’heure actuelle.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.