Self-assessment of nursing preparedness and knowledge in the care of patients with obstetric anal sphincter injuries and utilization of a computer-based learning module for continued nursing education in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Perineal injury is the most common complication of vaginal delivery, and labor and delivery (L&D) nurses are crucial in managing and educating women following perineal trauma. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess L&D nurse experience, knowledge, and self-perception of preparedness in caring for women with obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) and to compare pre- and post-test scores using a computer-based learning module (CBL) for OASIS nurse education. STUDY DESIGN: All L&D nurses were invited to complete a voluntary, self-assessment questionnaire inquiring about prior experience, training, and education and current clinical practice in caring for patients with OASIS. They were also asked to answer ten knowledge-based questions about OASIS. The primary outcome was change in pretest and posttest knowledge-based scores after completion of CBL. RESULTS: Forty-one L&D nurses voluntarily responded to the self-assessment survey. Of respondents, 20% answered they were "very comfortable", 48% "comfortable", 23% "neutral," and 8% "uncomfortable" for caring for women with OASIS post-delivery. Fifty-three percent of reported having no formal education in nursing school about OASIS and 35% reported no formal training while at work. The average pretest knowledge test score was 66.3% and 93.5% (p < 0.001) after completion of the CBL. CONCLUSIONS: Most L&D nurses in this study reported having very limited formal nursing education in OASIS. Regardless of this lack of formal training, the majority of L&D nurses in this sample described themselves as comfortable caring for patients with OASIS post-delivery. Completion of a CBL was associated with higher OASIS knowledge scores.

International Urogynaecology Consultation chapter 1 committee 4: patients' perception of disease burden of pelvic organ prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This manuscript from Chapter 1 of the International Urogynecology Consultation (IUC) on Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) reports on the patients' perception of disease burden associated with pelvic organ prolapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international group containing a team of eight urogynaecologists, a physiotherapist and a statistician performed a search of the literature using pre-specified search terms in PubMed and Embase (January 2000 to August 2020). The division of sections within this report includes: (1) perception of POP and the relationship with body image and poor health; (2) a vaginal bulge as it impacts health and wellbeing in women; (3) the impact of POP on sexual life; (4) body image and pelvic floor disorders; (5) POP and mood; (6) appropriate use of treatment goals to better meet patients' expected benefits; (7) using health-related quality of life questionnaires to quantify patients' perception of POP; (8) The financial burden of POP to patients and society. Abstracts were reviewed and publications were eliminated if not relevant or did not include populations with POP or were not relevant to the subject areas as noted by the authors. The manuscripts were next reviewed for suitability using the Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE) checklists for cohort, cross-sectional and case-control epidemiologic studies. RESULTS: The original individual literature searches yielded 2312 references of which 190 were used in the final manuscript. The following perceptions were identified: (1) women were found to have varying perceptions of POP including shame and embarrassment. Some regard POP as consequence of aging and consider there is no effective therapy. (2) POP is perceived as a vaginal bulge and affects lifestyle and emotional wellbeing. The main driver for treatment is absence of bulge sensation. (3) POP is known to affect frequency of sexual intercourse but has less impact on satisfaction. (4) Prolapse-specific body image and genital self-image are important components of a women's emotional, physical and sexual wellbeing. (5) POP is commonly associated with depression and anxiety symptoms which impact HRQoL although are not correlated with objective anatomical findings. (6) Patient-centered treatment goals are useful in facilitating communication, shared decision-making and expectations before and after reconstructive surgery. (7) Disease-specific HRQoL questionnaires are important tools to assess bother and outcome following surgery, and there are now several tools with Level 1 evidence and a Grade A recommendation. (8) The cost of POP to the individual and to society is considerable in terms of productivity. In general, conservative measures tend to be more cost-effective than surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perception of POP varies in different patients and has a far-reaching impact on their overall state of health and wellbeing. However, recognizing that it is a combination of body image and overall health (which affects mental health) allows clinicians to better tailor expectations for treatment to individual patients. There are HRQoL tools that can be used to quantify these impacts in clinical care and research. The costs to the individual patient (which affects their perception of POP) is an area that is poorly understood and needs more research.

Enhanced recovery program for minimally invasive and vaginal urogynecologic surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) are evidenced-based interventions designed to standardize perioperative care and expedite recovery to baseline functional status after surgery. There remains a paucity of data addressing the effect of ERPs on pelvic reconstructive surgery patients. METHODS: An ERP was implemented at our institution including: patient counseling, carbohydrate loading, avoidance of opioids, goal-directed fluid resuscitation, immediate postoperative feeding and early ambulation. Patients undergoing elective pelvic reconstructive surgery before and after implementation of the ERP were identified in this cohort study. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients underwent pelvic reconstructive surgery within the ERP compared with 76 historic controls. Reductions were seen in length of hospital stay (29.9 vs. 27.9 h, p = 0.04), total morphine equivalents (37.4 vs. 19.4 mg, p < 0.01) and total intravenous fluids administered (2.7 l vs. 1.5 l, p < 0.0001). Hospital discharges before noon doubled (32.9 vs. 60.2%, p < 0.01). More patients in the ERP group ambulated on the day of surgery (17.1 vs. 73.7%, p < 0.01) and ambulated at least two times the day following surgery (34.2 vs. 72.9%, p < 0.01). No differences were seen in average pain scores (highest pain score 7.39 vs. 7.37, p = 0.95), hospital readmissions (3.9 vs. 3.4%, p = 0.84), or postoperative complications (6.58 vs. 8.47%, p = 0.79). Patient satisfaction significantly improved. ERP was not associated with an increase in 30-day total hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ERP for pelvic reconstructive surgery patients was associated with a reduced length of hospital stay, improved patient satisfaction, and decreased administration of intravenous fluids and opioids without an increase in complications, readmissions, or hospital costs.

Review of enhanced recovery programs in benign gynecologic surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) are evidence-based protocols designed to improve functional rehabilitation after surgery. ERPs have gained widespread acceptance in many surgical disciplines, and their use leads to significant improvements in patient outcomes while reducing hospital length of stay (LOS). There remains a paucity of data on the use of ERPs in benign gynecologic surgery. The purpose of this review was to evaluate current literature on the use of ERP concepts in benign gynecologic surgery. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases was conducted, cross-referencing search terms related to gynecologic surgery and ERP concepts. The search was limited to publications available in English. Studies published prior to 2000, and those involving gynecologic oncology, nonadult patients, and outpatient surgery were excluded. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the analysis. Due to heterogeneity of the included studies, no statistical pooling was possible and comparison between studies was limited to their respective themes. Primary study outcomes included LOS, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain management, patient satisfaction, and hospital costs. Five studies investigated ERPs, two evaluated measures to improve PONV, and four focused on unique aspects of pain management. Across the studies, ERPs that focused on the patients' basic symptoms and recovery were found to have equal, if not better, outcomes than standard practice. CONCLUSIONS: This integrative review supports the implementation of ERPs in benign gynecologic surgery. The results showed that the use of ERPs decreased LOS, improved pain scores, and reduced hospital costs, without increasing perioperative complications. We suggest additional randomized controlled trials of ERP concepts in benign gynecologic surgery to support their more widespread use and application.

Treatment strategies for pelvic organ prolapse: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To compare the relative cost effectiveness of treatment decision alternatives for post-hysterectomy pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model was used to assess and compare the relative cost effectiveness of expectant management, use of a pessary, and surgery for obtaining months of quality-adjusted life over 1 year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine whether the results depended on specific estimates of patient utilities for pessary use, probabilities for complications and other events, and estimated costs. RESULTS: Only two treatment alternatives were found to be efficient choices: initial pessary use and vaginal reconstructive surgery (VRS). Pessary use (including patients that eventually transitioned to surgery) achieved 10.4 quality-adjusted months, at a cost of $10,000 per patient, while VRS obtained 11.4 quality-adjusted months, at $15,000 per patient. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that these baseline results depended on several key estimates in the model. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that pessary use and VRS are the most cost-effective treatment alternatives for treating post-hysterectomy vaginal prolapse. Additional research is needed to standardize POP outcomes and complications, so that healthcare providers can best utilize cost information in balancing the risks and benefits of their treatment decisions.