Advertisement

National survey of urogynecological practice patterns among United States OB/GYN oral board examinees in different practice settings

  • Andrey Petrikovets
  • Abigail Davenport
  • Sherif A. El-Nashar
  • David Sheyn
  • Jeffrey Mangel
  • Sangeeta T. Mahajan
Original Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Urogynecology Trends Survey Private practice Oral boards 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Brueseke T, Muffly T, Rayburn W, et al. Workforce analysis of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, 2015 to 2045. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(5):385–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, et al. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):230–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ciotti M. Minimum thresholds for obstetric and gynecology procedures. Available at: https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRe sources/220_Ob_Gyn%20Minimum_Numbers_An nouncment.pdf〉; 2012. Accessed 6 October 2017.
  4. 4.
    Jelovsek JE, Walters MD, Koran A, et al. Establishing cutoff scores on assessment of surgical skills to determine surgical competence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(1):81.e1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rogo-Gupta LJ, Lewin SN, Kim JH. The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes and resource use for vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1341–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Espey E, Ogburn T, Puscheck E. Impact of duty hour limitations on resident and student education in obstetrics and gynecology. J Reprod Med. 2007;52(5):345–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkett D, Horwitz J, Kennedy V, et al. Assessing current trends in resident hysterectomy training. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(5):210–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yun JJ, Siddighi S. Perceptions and practice patterns of general gynecologists regarding urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):225–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaudhry Z, Tarnay CM. Assessing resident surgical volume before and after initiation of a female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(3):450–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pulliam SJ, Morgan DM, Guaderrama N, et al. Differences in patterns of preoperative assessment between high, intermediate, and low volume surgeons when performing hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(1):7–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mowat A, Maher C, Ballard E. Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(1):21–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Urology InstituteUniversity Hospitals Cleveland Medical CenterClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive SurgeryMetroHealth Medical CenterClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations