Contraceptive Care for Women With Medical Conditions: A Qualitative Study to Identify Potential Best Practices for Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Women with medical conditions are at higher risk of pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality than women without medical conditions. Thus, women who do not desire pregnancy should be offered contraceptive counseling and methods. The objective of this qualitative study was to identify potential best practices to guide primary care physicians (PCPs) in providing contraception and contraceptive counseling for women with medical conditions. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews of 10 PCPs who routinely provide contraception including long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). To inform the data collection and analysis, we adapted constructs from the Theoretical Domains Framework. We coded transcripts and identified themes until saturation of our theoretical constructs was achieved. RESULTS: Physician time constraints, lack of patient knowledge, and competing demands related to medical condition management were identified as barriers to contraceptive care. The study participants reported multiple strategies to mitigate these barriers. They emphasized providing reproductive health education in the context of an individual's chronic conditions and medications, educating about LARC methods, and using the US Medical Eligibility Criteria (US MEC) as a point-of-care clinical tool to guide contraceptive selection. CONCLUSIONS: The study participants (PCPs experienced in contraceptive care), described multifaceted approaches to providing contraception for women with medical conditions, including tailored contraceptive education and use of the US MEC for clinical guidance. Future research is needed to assess if such strategies can improve patient outcomes and be adopted by PCPs who have less experience with contraceptive care.

Continuous quality improvement methodology: a case study on multidisciplinary collaboration to improve chlamydia screening.

This article illustrates quality improvement (QI) methodology using an example intended to improve chlamydia screening in women. QI projects in healthcare provide great opportunities to improve patient quality and safety in a real-world healthcare setting, yet many academic centres lack training programmes on how to conduct QI projects. The choice of chlamydia screening was based on the significant health burden chlamydia poses despite simple ways to screen and treat. At the University of Michigan, we implemented a multidepartment process to improve the chlamydia screening rates using the plan-do-check-act model. Steps to guide QI projects include the following: (1) assemble a motivated team of stakeholders and leaders; (2) identify the problem that is considered a high priority; (3) prepare for the project including support and resources; (4) set a goal and ways to evaluate outcomes; (5) identify the root cause(s) of the problem and prioritise based on impact and effort to address; (6) develop a countermeasure that addresses the selected root cause effectively; (7) pilot a small-scale project to assess for possible modifications; (8) large-scale roll-out including education on how to implement the project; and (9) assess and modify the process with a feedback mechanism. Using this nine-step process, chlamydia screening rates increased from 29% to 60%. QI projects differ from most clinical research projects by allowing clinicians to directly improve patients' health while contributing to the medical science body. This may interest clinicians wishing to conduct relevant research that can be disseminated through academic channels.

Impact of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Screening for Chlamydia.

The highest prevalence of chlamydia infection in the United States is among people aged 15 to 24 years. We assessed the impact of not doing routine cervical cancer screening on the rates of chlamydia screening in women aged 15 to 21 years. We classified visits to family medicine ambulatory clinics according to their timing relative to the 2009 guideline change that led to more restrictive cervical cancer screening. Women had higher odds of being screened for chlamydia before vs after the guideline change (odds ratio = 13.97; 95% CI, 9.17-21.29; P <.001). Chlamydia and cervical cancer screening need to be uncoupled and new screening opportunities should be identified.