National survey of urogynecological practice patterns among United States OB/GYN oral board examinees in different practice settings
- 6 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
The current urogynecological surgical experience of recent OB/GYN graduates in different practice settings is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in urogynecological surgical care between private practitioners (PPs) and other generalist OB/GYN oral board examinees.
A total of 699 OB/GYN oral board examination examinees were administered a survey during board preparatory courses with a 70.7% response rate. The primary outcome was to determine differences in subjective reported performance of urogynecological surgery with and without apical support procedures (female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, FPMRS, ± apical) between PP and generalists in other practice models (academic, managed care, other). Secondary outcomes included urogynecological case list reporting, referral patterns, and residency training.
A total of 473 surveys were completed; after excluding subspecialists, 210 surveys were completed by PP and 162 by individuals in other settings. 6.7% of PPs subjectively reported that they perform FPMRS + apical surgery compared with 4.3% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.33). Although 29.2% of PPs reported adequate FPMRS training in residency compared with 39.7% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.04), 53.6% of PPs reported that they refer patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), compared with 66.5% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.013). 38.9% of PPs report that they performed POP surgery compared with 27.8% of non-PPs (p = 0.014).
Regardless of practice setting, surgical volumes are low and few general OB/GYN board examinees report that they perform comprehensive FPMRS ± apical support surgery. The practice environment may affect providers’ management of patients with pelvic floor disorders.
KeywordsUrogynecology Trends Survey Private practice Oral boards
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest