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