Miscarriage Treatment-Related Morbidities and Adverse Events in Hospitals, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, and Office-Based Settings.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine whether miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events vary across facility types. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study compared miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and office-based settings. Data on women who had miscarriage treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were continuously enrolled in their insurance plan for at least 1 year before and at least 6 weeks after treatment were obtained from a large national private insurance claims database. The main outcome was miscarriage treatment-related morbidities and adverse events occurring within 6 weeks of miscarriage treatment. Secondary outcomes were major events and infections. RESULTS: A total of 97,374 miscarriage treatments met inclusion criteria. Most (75%) were provided in hospitals, 10% ASCs, and 15% office-based settings. A total of 9.3% had miscarriage treatment-related events, 1.0% major events, and 1.5% infections. In adjusted analyses, there were fewer events in ASCs (6.5%) than office-based settings (9.4%) and hospitals (9.6%), but no significant difference between office-based settings and hospitals. There were no significant differences in major events between ASCs (0.7%) and office-based settings (0.8%), but more in hospitals (1.1%) than ASCs and office-based settings. There were fewer infections in ASCs (0.9%) than office-based settings (1.2%) and more in hospitals (1.6%) than ASCs and office-based settings. In analyses stratified by miscarriage treatment type, the difference between ASCs and office-based settings was no longer significant for miscarriages treated with procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Although there seem to be slightly more events in hospitals than ASCs or office-based settings, findings do not support limiting miscarriage treatment to particular settings.

Association of Facility Type With Procedural-Related Morbidities and Adverse Events Among Patients Undergoing Induced Abortions.

Importance: Multiple states have laws requiring abortion facilities to meet ambulatory surgery center (ASC) standards. There is limited evidence regarding abortion-related morbidities and adverse events following abortions performed at ASCs vs office-based settings. Objective: To compare abortion-related morbidities and adverse events at ASCs vs office-based settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of women with US private health insurance who underwent induced abortions in an ASC or office-based setting (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2014). Outcomes were abstracted from a large national private insurance claims database during the 6 weeks following the abortion (date of final follow-up, February 11, 2015). Exposures: Facility type for abortion (ASCs vs office-based settings, including facilities such as abortion clinics, nonspecialized clinics, and physician offices). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was any abortion-related morbidity or adverse event (such as retained products of conception, abortion-related infection, hemorrhage, and uterine perforation) within 6 weeks after an abortion. Two secondary outcomes, both subsets of the primary outcome, were major abortion-related morbidities and adverse events (such as hemorrhages treated with a transfusion, missed ectopic pregnancies treated with surgery, and abortion-related infections that resulted in an overnight hospital admission) and abortion-related infections. Results: Among 49 287 women (mean age, 28 years [SD, 7.3]) who had 50 311 induced abortions, (23 891 [47%] first-trimester aspiration, 13 480 [27%] first-trimester medication, and 12 940 [26%] second trimester or later), 5660 abortions (11%) were performed in ASCs and 44 651 (89%) in office-based settings. Overall, 3.33% had an abortion-related morbidity or adverse event; 0.32% had a major abortion-related morbidity or adverse event; and 0.74% had an abortion-related infection. In adjusted analyses, there was no statistically significant difference between ASCs vs office-based settings, respectively, in the rates of abortion-related morbidities or adverse events (3.25% vs 3.33%, difference, -0.08%; [corrected] 95% CI, -0.58% to 0.43%; adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.17), major morbidities or adverse events (0.26% vs 0.33%; difference, -0.06%; 95% CI, -0.18% to 0.06%; adjusted OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.37), or infections (0.58% vs 0.77%; difference, -0.16%; 95% CI, -0.35% to 0.03%; adjusted OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.09). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with private health insurance who had an induced abortion, performance of the abortion in an ambulatory surgical center compared with an office-based setting was not associated with a significant difference in abortion-related morbidities and adverse events. These findings, in addition to individual patient and individual facility factors, may inform decisions about the type of facility in which induced abortions are performed.

A discrete choice experiment to determine facility-based delivery services desired by women and men in rural Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVES: Despite global efforts to increase facility-based delivery (FBD), 90% of women in rural Ethiopia deliver at home without a skilled birth attendant. Men have an important role in increasing FBD due to their decision-making power, but this is largely unexplored. This study aimed to determine the FBD care attributes preferred by women and men, and whether poverty or household decision-making are associated with choice to deliver in a facility. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional discrete choice experiment in 109 randomly selected households in rural Ethiopia in September-October 2015. We interviewed women who were pregnant or who had a child <2 years old and their male partners. RESULTS: Both women and men preferred health facilities where medications and supplies were available (OR=3.08; 95% CI 2.03 to 4.67 and OR=2.68; 95% CI 1.79 to 4.02, respectively), a support person was allowed in the delivery room (OR=1.69; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.07 and OR=1.74; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.14, respectively) and delivery cost was low (OR=1.15 95% CI 1.12 to 1.18 and OR=1.14; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.17, respectively). Women valued free ambulance service (OR=1.37; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.70), while men favoured nearby facilities (OR=1.09; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13) with friendly providers (OR=1.30; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.64). Provider preferences were complex. Neither women nor men preferred female doctors to health extension workers (HEW) (OR=0.92; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.42 and OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14, respectively), male doctors to HEW (OR=1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.99 and OR=0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12, respectively) or female over male nurses (OR=0.68; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.71 and OR=1.03; 95% CI 0.77 to 2.94, respectively). While both women and men preferred male nurses to HEW (OR=1.86; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80 and OR=1.95; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.95, respectively), men (OR=1.89; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.78), but not women (OR=1.47; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.13) preferred HEW to female nurses. Both women and men preferred female doctors to male nurses (OR=1.71; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.29 and OR=1.44; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.92, respectively), male doctors to female nurses (OR=1.95; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.62 and OR=1.41; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.90, respectively) and male doctors to male nurses (OR=2.47; 95% CI 1.84 to 3.32 and OR=1.46; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.95, respectively), while only women preferred male doctors to female doctors (OR=1.45; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.93 and OR=1.01; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, respectively) and only men preferred female nurses to female doctors (OR=1.34; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.84 and OR=1.39; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.89, respectively). Men were disproportionately involved in making household decisions (X2 (1, n=216)=72.18, p<0.001), including decisions to seek healthcare (X2 (1, n=216)=55.39, p<0.001), yet men were often unaware of their partners' prenatal care attendance (X2 (1, n=215)=82.59, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Women's and men's preferences may influence delivery service choices. Considering these choices is one way the Ethiopian government and health facilities may encourage FBD in rural areas.