Purpose of review Abortion services are essential in sexual and reproductive health and should be held to the same standards as other health services. Patient (or person)-centeredness is a key dimension of healthcare quality that incorporates the perspectives of patients in care provision. The purpose of this review is to summarize studies published in the last year examining women's experiences with abortion care and to describe facilitators and barriers to person-centered care. Recent findings Considering person-centeredness in abortion care using dimensions of dignity, autonomy, privacy, communication, social support, supportive care and health facility environment allows for critical evaluation of data describing women's experiences with abortion and postabortion services. Review of the available literature shed light on the impact of social stigma, health policy and abortion restrictions on women's abortion experiences. Summary Considering multiple domains and varied settings, current data suggest abortion services worldwide generally fail to provide person-centered care. Institutions and providers may be limited in their ability to provide patient-centered abortion care because of deeply embedded social stigma, institutional regulations and legal restrictions.

No abstract

Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POC-US) is a diagnostic test conducted at the site of patient care with direct interpretation by the clinician, providing immediate results. POC-US for gynecologic application is not well characterized by current literature yet has the potential to increase access in limited resource settings. We compared the diagnostics of three POC-US devices for gynecologic (GYN) pathology and then performed evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of a single best POC-US device for intended use in a low resource setting. Methods This is prospective, pilot descriptive study of 60 subjects. In part 1, comparison of three POC-US devices was performed. Twenty subjects underwent POC-US with three test units [GE Vscan (Vscan), Sonosite Iviz (Iviz), Philips Lumify (Lumify)] followed by diagnostic ultrasound (Dx-US) for reference imaging. Image quality and correlation for devices was scored by blinded reviewers and quantitative measurements of GYN pathology were compared. In part 2, forty subjects underwent POC-US validation with the highest scoring device (Lumify) and Dx-US for reference imaging. Concordance of POC-US operator-interpreted diagnosis with reference imaging interpretation were assessed by Cohen’s unweighted kappa coefficient. Accuracy and agreement of POC-US were assessed by linear regression and Bland–Altman plot analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of POC-US for gynecologic pathologies were calculated. Results In aggregate qualitative measurements, Lumify and Iviz units performed superiorly to Vscan. There was no statistically significant difference in quantitative measurements between devices, but a trend towards lower mean error was seen for Lumify and Iviz as compared to Vscan. Lumify device had highest overall scoring and was selected for further testing. In validation comparison of Lumify to Dx-US, no statistically significant differences were found for measurements of endometrium, uterus, ovaries, adnexal pathology, or leiomyomata, (P < 0.02) with excellent agreement in operator-interpreted diagnosis (Kappa > 0.7). Sensitivity and specificity of detecting pathology was 80–100% with PPV and NPV 76–100%. Conclusion Among three POC-US devices, Lumify and Iviz devices show highest potential for successful application to clinical gynecologic ultrasound. Clinician-performed POC-US has high diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for basic GYN anatomy and pathology. POC-US is an acceptable and feasible diagnostic tool with potential for future application in a low resource setting to increase access to ultrasound.

The objective of this quality improvement study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of integrating long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) delivery services into an academic pediatric primary care practice. Adolescent medicine providers in Baltimore, Maryland, were trained in LARC placement with gynecology providers integrated to offer onsite LARC placement and procedural support. Referrals, appointments, and contraceptive method choice/receipt were tabulated. Of 212 individuals referred for LARC consultations, 104 attended appointments. LARC placement at the initial referral increased from year 1 (N = 1) to year 2 (N = 42; P < .01). Adolescent medicine providers placed more LARCs in year 2 (N = 34) than year 1 (N = 0; P < .01). Patients aged 18 to 24 years were less likely to have a LARC placed than those aged 13 to 17 years (unadjusted odds ratio = 0.47 [0.26–0.86]). In conclusion, provider training and service integration of LARC services within a pediatric practice is feasible, acceptable, and increases LARC access and placement.

No abstract