Treatment patterns of primary care physicians vs specialists prior to subspecialty urogynaecology referral for women suffering from pelvic floor disorders

Abigail Prentice, A. Bazzi, M. F. Aslam
{"title":"Treatment patterns of primary care physicians vs specialists prior to subspecialty urogynaecology referral for women suffering from pelvic floor disorders","authors":"Abigail Prentice, A. Bazzi, M. F. Aslam","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v9.i2.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND There are approximately 25% of women in the United States suffering from pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) and this number is predicted to rise. The potential complications and increasing healthcare costs that exist with an operation indicate the importance of conservative treatment options prior to attempting surgery. Considering the prevalence of PFDs, it is important for primary care physician and specialists (obstetricians and gynecologists) to be familiar with the initial work-up and the available conservative treatment options prior to subspecialist (urogynecologist) referral. AIM To assess the types of treatments that specialists attempted prior to subspecialty referral and determine the differences in referral patterns. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study of 234 patients from a community teaching hospital referred to a single female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) provider for PFD. Specialist vs primary care provider (PCP) referrals were compared. Number, length and treatment types were studied using descriptive statistics. RESULTS There were 184 referrals (78.6%) by specialists and 50 (21.4%) by PCP. Treatment (with Kegel exercises, pessary placements, and anticholinergic medications) was attempted on 51% (n = 26) of the PCP compared to 48% (n = 88) of the specialist referrals prior to FPMRS referral (P = 0.6). There was no significant difference in length of treatment prior to referral for PCPs vs specialists (14 mo vs 16 mo, respectively, P = 0.88). However, there was a significant difference in the patient’s average time with the condition prior to referral (35 mo vs 58 mo for PCP compared to specialist referrals) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION One half of the patients referred to FPMRS clinic received treatment prior to referral. Thus, specialists and generalists can benefit from education regarding therapies for PFD before subspecialty referral.","PeriodicalId":23729,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"134 1","pages":"26 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v9.i2.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

BACKGROUND There are approximately 25% of women in the United States suffering from pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) and this number is predicted to rise. The potential complications and increasing healthcare costs that exist with an operation indicate the importance of conservative treatment options prior to attempting surgery. Considering the prevalence of PFDs, it is important for primary care physician and specialists (obstetricians and gynecologists) to be familiar with the initial work-up and the available conservative treatment options prior to subspecialist (urogynecologist) referral. AIM To assess the types of treatments that specialists attempted prior to subspecialty referral and determine the differences in referral patterns. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study of 234 patients from a community teaching hospital referred to a single female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) provider for PFD. Specialist vs primary care provider (PCP) referrals were compared. Number, length and treatment types were studied using descriptive statistics. RESULTS There were 184 referrals (78.6%) by specialists and 50 (21.4%) by PCP. Treatment (with Kegel exercises, pessary placements, and anticholinergic medications) was attempted on 51% (n = 26) of the PCP compared to 48% (n = 88) of the specialist referrals prior to FPMRS referral (P = 0.6). There was no significant difference in length of treatment prior to referral for PCPs vs specialists (14 mo vs 16 mo, respectively, P = 0.88). However, there was a significant difference in the patient’s average time with the condition prior to referral (35 mo vs 58 mo for PCP compared to specialist referrals) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION One half of the patients referred to FPMRS clinic received treatment prior to referral. Thus, specialists and generalists can benefit from education regarding therapies for PFD before subspecialty referral.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初级保健医生与专科泌尿妇科专科医生对患有盆底疾病的妇女转诊前的治疗模式
在美国,大约有25%的女性患有盆底疾病(PFDs),预计这一数字还会上升。手术的潜在并发症和不断增加的医疗费用表明在尝试手术前选择保守治疗的重要性。考虑到PFDs的患病率,初级保健医生和专科医生(产科医生和妇科医生)在转介专科医生(泌尿妇科医生)之前熟悉初始检查和可用的保守治疗方案是很重要的。目的评估专科医生在转诊前尝试的治疗类型,并确定转诊模式的差异。方法:这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了234名来自社区教学医院的女性盆腔医学和重建手术(FPMRS)提供者的PFD患者。比较专家和初级保健提供者(PCP)的转诊情况。采用描述性统计方法对数量、长度和治疗类型进行研究。结果经专科转诊184例(78.6%),经PCP转诊50例(21.4%)。51%的PCP患者(n = 26)尝试了治疗(凯格尔运动、必要的子宫放置和抗胆碱能药物),而在FPMRS转诊之前,48%的专科转诊患者(n = 88)尝试了治疗(P = 0.6)。转介到pcp和专科医生前的治疗时间没有显著差异(分别为14个月和16个月,P = 0.88)。然而,转诊前患者的平均时间有显著差异(PCP与专科转诊相比,前者为35个月,后者为58个月)(P = 0.02)。结论有一半的患者在转诊前接受了治疗。因此,专科医生和全科医生在转诊前都能从PFD治疗方面的教育中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sequential extraction of RNA, DNA and protein from cultured cells of the same group Crohn's disease and clinical management today: How it does? Assessing the readability of online information about jones fracture Adult eosinophilic esophagitis and advances in its treatment. Epidemiological trends in acute pancreatitis: A retrospective cohort in a tertiary center over a seven year period.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1