TY - JOUR
T1 - Miscarriage Treatment-Related Morbidities and Adverse Events in Hospitals, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, and Office-Based Settings
AU - Roberts, Sarah C.M.
AU - Beam, Nancy
AU - Liu, Guodong
AU - Upadhyay, Ushma D.
AU - Leslie, Douglas L.
AU - Ba, Djibril
AU - Kerns, Jennifer L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85096457571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85096457571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000553
DO - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000553
M3 - Article
C2 - 30516583
AN - SCOPUS:85096457571
SN - 1549-8417
VL - 16
SP - E317-E323
JO - Journal of Patient Safety
JF - Journal of Patient Safety
IS - 4
ER -