Provider Practice Patterns Regarding Over-The-Counter Continence Devices.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal inserts and continence devices are recommended as a conservative treatment option for the management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI); however, practice patterns for recommendation and use of such devices are currently unknown. Our objectives were to better understand counseling patterns relating to over-the-counter (OTC) continence devices, to assess perceived barriers to recommending these devices, and to estimate clinician familiarity with three such devices currently available in the USA. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited OB/GYN and Urology residency and Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) fellowship programs. A total of 326 survey responses were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess respondent characteristics associated with recommending OTC continence devices to patients. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of respondents expressed familiarity with any OTC continence device. Of respondents who reported regular evaluation and treatment of women with SUI (n = 269), 60% reported ever recommending OTC devices for SUI. On multivariate regression, being a trainee and general OB/GYN provider were associated with being less likely to recommend OTC devices for SUI. Of respondents who did not regularly recommend OTC continence devices, reported barriers to doing so included a lack of training with these devices, leading to clinician discomfort (70%) and not remembering OTC devices as an option (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the low risk associated with patient use of these easily accessible devices, our study highlights barriers to clinician recommendation with the goal of increasing clinician awareness and consideration of OTC continence devices.

Twelve Month Outcomes of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery in Patients With Uterovaginal or Posthysterectomy Vaginal Prolapse Enrolled in the Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare 12-month subjective and objective outcomes between 3 approaches to apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in patients presenting with uterovaginal or posthysterectomy vaginal prolapse enrolled in the Pelvic Floor Disorders Registry for Research. STUDY DESIGN: This was an analysis of a multicenter, prospective registry that collected both patient- and physician-reported data for up to 3 years after conservative (pessary) and surgical treatment for POP. Twelve-month subjective and anatomic outcomes for patients who underwent surgical treatment were extracted from the registry for analysis. Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence was defined as a composite outcome and compared between the 3 apical surgery groups (native tissue repair, sacrocolpopexy, colpocleisis) as well as the 2 reconstructive surgery groups (native tissue repair and sacrocolpopexy). RESULTS: A total of 1,153 women were enrolled in the registry and 777 (67%) opted for surgical treatment, of whom 641 underwent apical repair and were included in this analysis (404 native tissue repair, 187 sacrocolpopexy, and 50 colpocleisis). The overall incidence of recurrence was as follows: subjective 6.5%, anatomic 4.7%, retreatment 7.2%, and composite 13.6%. The incidence of recurrence was not different between the 3 surgical groups. When baseline patient characteristics were controlled for, composite POP recurrence between the native tissue and sacrocolpopexy groups remained statistically nonsignificant. Concurrent perineorrhaphy with any type of apical POP surgery was associated with a lower risk of recurrence (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.74; P = 0.002) and prior hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77, 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.03; P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Pelvic Floor Disorders Registry for Research participants undergoing native tissue apical POP repair, sacrocolpopexy, and colpocleisis surgery had similar rates of POP recurrence 12 months after surgery.

Investigating disparities in compliance of nursing pain reassessment for obstetrics and gynecology patients.

BACKGROUND: Racial and socioeconomic disparities, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic and surrounding socio-political polarization, affect access to, delivery of, and patient perception of healthcare. Perioperatively, the bedside nurse carries the greatest responsibility of direct care, which includes pain reassessment, a metric tracked for compliance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to critically assess disparities in obstetrics and gynecology perioperative care and how these have changed since March 2020 using nursing pain reassessment compliance within a quality improvement framework. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort of 76,984 pain reassessment encounters from 10,774 obstetrics and gynecology patients at a large, academic hospital from September 2017 to March 2021 was obtained from Tableau: Quality, Safety and Risk Prevention platform. Noncompliance proportions were analyzed by patient race across service lines; a sensitivity analysis was performed excluding patients who were of neither Black nor White race. Secondary outcomes included analysis by patient ethnicity, body mass index, age, language, procedure, and insurance. Additional analyses were performed by temporally stratifying patients into pre- and post-March 2020 cohorts to investigate potential pandemic and sociopolitical effects on healthcare disparities. Continuous variables were assessed with Wilcoxon rank test, categorical variables were assessed with chi-squared test, and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed (P<.05). RESULTS: Noncompliance proportions of pain reassessment did not differ significantly between Black and White patients as an aggregate of all obstetrics and gynecology patients (8.1% vs 8.2%), but greater differences were found within the divisions of Benign Subspecialty Gynecologic Surgery (Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery + Urogynecology) (14.9% vs 10.70%; P=.03) and Maternal Fetal Medicine (9.5% vs 8.3%; P=.04). Black patients admitted to Gynecologic Oncology experienced lower noncompliance proportions than White patients (5.6% vs 10.4%; P<.01). These differences persisted after adjustment for body mass index, age, insurance, timeline, procedure type, and number of nurses attending to each patient with multivariable analyses. Noncompliance proportions were higher for patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 within Benign Subspecialty Gynecology (17.9% vs 10.4%; P<.01). Non-Hispanic/Latino patients (P=.03), those ≥65 years (P<.01), those with Medicare (P<.01), and those who underwent hysterectomy (P<.01) also experienced greater noncompliance proportions. Aggregate noncompliance proportions differed slightly pre- and post-March 2020; this trend was seen across all service lines except Midwifery and was significant for Benign Subspecialty Gynecology after multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.93; P=.04). Though increases in noncompliance proportions were seen for non-White patients after March 2020, this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Significant race, ethnicity, age, procedure, and body mass index-based disparities were identified in the delivery of perioperative bedside care, especially for those admitted to Benign Subspecialty Gynecologic Services. Conversely, Black patients admitted to Gynecologic Oncology experienced lower levels of nursing noncompliance. This may be in part be related to the actions of a Gynecologic Oncology nurse practioner at our institution who helps coordinate care for the division's postoperative patients. Noncompliance proportions increased after March 2020 within Benign Subspecialty Gynecologic Services. Although this study was not designed to establish causation, possible contributing factors include implicit or explicit biases regarding pain experience across race, body mass index, age, or surgical indication, discrepancies in pain management across hospital units, and downstream effects of healthcare worker burnout, understaffing, increased use of travelers, or sociopolitical polarization since March 2020. This study demonstrates the need for ongoing investigation of healthcare disparities at all interfaces of patient care and provides a way forward for tangible improvement of patient-directed outcomes by utilizing an actionable metric within a quality improvement framework.

An evaluation of pelvic floor disorders in a public and private healthcare setting.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objectives were to determine whether a difference exists in the duration of pelvic floor disorder (PFD) symptoms among patients presenting to urogynecologists in two healthcare systems: private and county; and to elucidate differences in baseline characteristics, type of PFDs, symptom severity and management, stratified by healthcare plans. METHODS: A multi-center retrospective study was conducted including new patients presenting to three urogynecology clinics between March 2016 and May 2018: one private clinic (site A) and two public clinics in the same county healthcare system (sites B and C). Baseline data included age, race, BMI, parity, and comorbidities. Primary outcome was "time to presentation" defined as PFD duration in months. Secondary outcomes were symptom severity and PFD management, analyzed by healthcare setting and insurance type. RESULTS: A total of 1,055 private and 439 public patients were included. Patients in the public setting were younger (54 vs 61 years, p<0.001), largely Hispanic (76% vs 14%, p<0.001), of higher parity (4 vs 3, p=0.001), and had more comorbidities, with a predominance of county-funded healthcare plans. There was no difference in duration of symptoms between the public and private groups respectively (54 vs 56 months, p=0.94). Patients in the public setting had more severe urinary incontinence (3 vs 2 pads/day, p<0.001) and prolapse (stages 3-4, 71% vs 61%, p=0.004); however, they had lower rates of surgical management for stress incontinence and prolapse. Differences in fecal incontinence could not be evaluated owing to small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Public patients presented younger with more severe symptoms but had lower rates of surgery for PFDs traditionally managed surgically.

Barriers to Care Affecting Presentation to Urogynecologists in a Community Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate barriers to care for patients presenting to urogynecologists and determine how these barriers differ in private and public/county health care settings. METHODS: Standardized anonymous questionnaires were distributed from May 2018 to July 2018 to new patients presenting to a urogynecologist at three institutions: two private health care clinics (sites A and B) and one public/county hospital clinic (site C). Patients identified symptom duration, symptom severity, and factors inhibiting presentation to care from a list of barriers. Patients then identified the primary barrier to care. RESULTS: One hundred nine questionnaires were distributed, and 88 were submitted, resulting in an 81% response rate (31 from site A, 30 from site B, 27 from site C). In analysis of the private versus public setting, there was no statistical difference between age (58 years vs 57 years, P = 0.69), body mass index (28 vs 30, P = 0.301), symptom duration (24 months vs 16 months, P = 0.28), or severity respectively. When asked to identify the primary barrier to presentation, patients in the private setting stated they did not know to see a specialist (26.2%, P = 0.002), while patients in the public setting could not obtain a closer appointment time (22.2% vs 13.1%, P = 0.35. Additionally, patients in the public setting were more likely to cite lack of health care coverage as a barrier to care (18.5% vs 1.6%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study highlights barriers that can contribute to the disparity of care seen in our patient population. Efforts should be made to acknowledge and mitigate hindrances impacting access to care.