Assessing the health-related management of people with differences of sex development

Development of Quality Indicators to Evaluate the Quality of Care for People with Differences of Sex Development

INTRODUCTION

Achieving evidence-based, high-quality medical care is the overarching goal of healthcare quality management. Quality indicators (QIs) serve as proxies to show whether good quality is reached or not. This article describes the development of QI for the evaluation of healthcare quality in the area of differences of sex development (DSD).

METHODS

Following the model of Donabedian, the aim was to develop QI to assess defined relevant aspects of the quality of structures, processes, and outcomes of care in DSD. Ten DSD clinical centres and two self-advocacy groups in Germany included in the DSDCare project were involved in the development of the QI and a benchmarking system. The development of the QI involved several structured steps: analysis of guidelines and recommendations, literature review, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in the field of DSD, and patients or their carers. QIs were discussed in a multi-stage systematic consensus process and assessed in terms of their relevance, feasibility, and practicability.

RESULTS

In a multi-stage systematic consensus process involving medical and psychological experts from a range of disciplines, people with DSD and their families, and representatives of self-advocacy groups, we have developed a set of 37 QIs (22 structure, seven process, and eight outcome quality). The QIs serve to evaluate care in the field of DSD and may add to the German criteria for certification of Centres for Rare Conditions formulated by the National Action League for People with Rare Diseases (NAMSE) in this area of expertise.

CONCLUSION

We have succeeded in developing and jointly adopting a set of QIs that consider a wide range of perspectives on the quality of care for people with DSD and their families. These QIs have been found to be relevant, feasible, and practicable, and they are now used for a yearly quality benchmarking in the participating DSD centres.

Extensive Literature Review of 46,XX Newborns with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Severe Genital Masculinization: Should They Be Assigned and Reared Male?

46,XX individuals born with severely masculinized genitals due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) who have been assigned male at birth and reared male can successfully establish a male gender identity/role, find employment, marry, function sexually with a female partner, and develop positive mental health status. While there were a few individuals who reportedly did not fare well or who changed gender to female, the majority of those identifying as males appear to have an overall good quality of life. Parental/family support, along with the support of others, appears essential to a positive outcome as a male, or as a female. This paper suggests that serious consideration should be given to male gender assignment and rearing and, in certain situations, is justified. Disorders of sex differentiation teams should inform parents about the option for male assignment and rearing in 46,XX CAH infants with severe genital masculinization, which is a rare condition. To provide this option is concordant with the principles of ethics, transparency and with the Endocrine Society Guidelines and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy of fully informed consent.

Beyond Race, Sex, and Gender: Mental Health Considerations of Transgender Youth of Color, Intersex Youth, and Nonbinary Youth

This article explores how race, sex, and gender are better thought of as a continuum rather than binary categories. Starting with a discussion of intersectionality, we examine the importance of ethnic-racial identity and explore unique cultural considerations for working with Black, Latinx, and AAPI transgender and nonbinary youth. We then examine intersex youth and variations of sex development, as well as specific challenges they face. Finally, we explore nonbinary gender identities and the importance of individually tailoring affirming interventions. For all sections, we highlight the strengths and resilience of the youth and offer clinical recommendations for child and adolescent providers.

Contexts of care for people with differences of sex development: Diversity is still missing in the laboratory routine

The 2006 Chicago consensus statement of management of disorders/difference of sex development (DSD) has achieved advantages in clinical care and diagnosis for patients and families affect by DSD. This article provides a brief overview of contexts of care for physicians, and points out specific challenges in clinical practice that have arisen from the transformations of the sex/gender system in recent years. We focus on the impact of diagnosis and laboratory measurements. Both laboratory measurements and hormonal therapies still depend on the binary system. One problem is the lack of reference intervals for the different forms of DSD, which means that diversity is often neglected. In the following, we will give a brief insight into this complex topic.

Cohort profile: pathways to care among people with disorders of sex development (DSD)

PURPOSE

The 'DSD Pathways' study was initiated to assess health status and patterns of care among people enrolled in large integrated healthcare systems and diagnosed with conditions comprising the broad category of disorders (differences) of sex development (DSD). The objectives of this communication are to describe methods of cohort ascertainment for two specific DSD conditions-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia with 46,XX karyotype (46,XX CAH) and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS).

PARTICIPANTS

Using electronic health records we developed an algorithm that combined diagnostic codes, clinical notes, laboratory data and pharmacy records to assign each cohort candidate a 'strength-of-evidence' score supporting the diagnosis of interest. A sample of cohort candidates underwent a review of the full medical record to determine the score cutoffs for final cohort validation.

FINDINGS TO DATE

Among 5404 classic 46,XX CAH cohort candidates the strength-of-evidence scores ranged between 0 and 10. Based on sample validation, the eligibility cut-off for full review was set at the strength-of-evidence score of ≥7 among children under the age of 8 years and ≥8 among older cohort candidates. The final validation of all cohort candidates who met the cut-off criteria identified 115 persons with classic 46,XX CAH. The strength-of-evidence scores among 648 CAIS cohort candidates ranged from 2 to 10. There were no confirmed CAIS cases among cohort candidates with scores <6. The in-depth medical record review for candidates with scores ≥6 identified 61 confirmed cases of CAIS.

FUTURE PLANS

As the first cohort of this type, the DSD Pathways study is well-positioned to fill existing knowledge gaps related to management and outcomes in this heterogeneous population. Analyses will examine diagnostic and referral patterns, adherence to care recommendations and physical and mental health morbidities examined through comparisons of DSD and reference populations and analyses of health status across DSD categories.

"Good practices" in pediatric clinical care for disorders/differences of sex development

PURPOSE

To define, benchmark, and publicize elements of quality care (i.e., "good practices") for pediatric patients with disorders/differences of sex development (DSD).

METHODS

Principles of quality care were identified by literature review; consensus exists for 11 good practices and adherence was evaluated through online survey of 21 North American clinical sites.

RESULTS

Strong uptake was observed for many practices, particularly specialty participation (n ≥ 17 of 21 sites for most core specialties); point of contact (n = 18); expertise in gender dysphoria/dissatisfaction (n = 20); and DSD-specific continuing medical education (n = 18). Greater variability was apparent for frequency of peer support referrals (n = 12 universally practiced); standardized questionnaires for routine assessment of psychosocial adaptation (n = 13) and gender development (n = 10); consistently clarifying patient/family values in decision-making (n = 15); genital exam protocols that exclude trainee education as primary reason (n = 15); and internal patient-tracking efforts (n = 5-10 of 20 sites).

CONCLUSION

This study employed a novel approach to designate DSD good practices and identified areas of consistency and variation in these DSD clinical practices. Good practice benchmarking facilitates quality assessment within and across sites, promotes continuous improvement, and empowers stakeholders in locating and delivering high quality care.