From the Department of Medical and Surgical Gynecology (Drs. Delara, Misal, Yi, and Wasson).
From the Department of Medical and Surgical Gynecology (Drs. Delara, Misal, Yi, and Wasson).
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Apr;28(4):872-880. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.002. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
To determine patterns and barriers for referral to fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons.
Questionnaire.
United States and its territories and Canada.
Actively practicing general obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs).
Internet-based survey.
Of 157 respondents, 144 (91.7%) general OB/GYNs were included. Subspecialty fellowship training resulted in the exclusion of 13 (8.3%) respondents. A total of 86 respondents (59.7%) considered referral to fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) subspecialists. The top 3 cited reasons for nonreferral were adequate residency training (n = 84, 58.3%), preference for continuity of care (n = 48, 33.3%), and preference for referral to other subspecialists (n = 46, 31.9%). The top 3 cited reasons for referral to MIGS subspecialists were complex pathology (n = 92, 63.9%), complex medical and/or surgical history (n = 76, 52.8%), and out of scope of practice (n = 53, 36.8%). If providers required intraoperative assistance, respondents consulted an OB/GYN colleague with comparable training (n = 50, 34.7%), gynecologic oncologist (n = 48, 33.3%), or non-OB/GYN surgical subspecialist (n = 33, 22.9%). Factors that were not associated with the decision to refer to MIGS subspecialists included years in practice (p = .13), additional training experiences beyond residency (p = .45), and number of hysterectomies performed by laparotomy (p = .69). Self-reported high-volume surgeons (p <.01) were less likely to refer. In contrast, providers who self-reported as low-volume surgeons (p = .02) and were aware of MIGS subspecialists in the community (p <.01) were more likely to consider referral. Respondents reported using a laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy most frequently (n = 79, 54.9%). In contrast, 36.8% preferred the laparoscopic route for themselves or their partner, whereas 48.6% preferred the vaginal approach.
Most of the general OB/GYNs would consider referral to fellowship-trained MIGS subspecialists. Providers who reported adequate residency training and those who preferred continuity of care or referral to other surgical subspecialists were less likely to refer to MIGS subspecialists.
确定向接受过微创妇科外科培训的专科医生转诊的模式和障碍。
问卷调查。
美国及其领土和加拿大。
活跃的妇产科医生(OB/GYN)。
基于互联网的调查。
在 157 名受访者中,有 144 名(91.7%)普通妇产科医生被纳入研究。专科培训使 13 名(8.3%)受访者被排除在外。共有 86 名(59.7%)受访者表示考虑向接受过微创妇科外科培训的专科医生转诊。不转诊的前 3 个原因是充分的住院医师培训(n=84,58.3%)、对连续性护理的偏好(n=48,33.3%)和对转诊给其他专科医生的偏好(n=46,31.9%)。转诊至微创妇科外科专科医生的前 3 个原因是复杂的病理(n=92,63.9%)、复杂的医学和/或手术史(n=76,52.8%)和超出实践范围(n=53,36.8%)。如果提供者需要术中协助,受访者会咨询具有类似培训的妇产科同事(n=50,34.7%)、妇科肿瘤学家(n=48,33.3%)或非妇产科外科专科医生(n=33,22.9%)。不考虑向微创妇科外科专科医生转诊的因素包括从业年限(p=0.13)、住院医师培训以外的额外培训经验(p=0.45)和剖腹子宫切除术的数量(p=0.69)。自我报告手术量大的医生(p<.01)不太可能转诊。相比之下,自我报告手术量小的医生(p=0.02)和了解社区微创妇科外科专科医生的医生(p<.01)更有可能考虑转诊。受访者报告最常使用腹腔镜方法进行子宫切除术(n=79,54.9%)。相比之下,36.8%的人更喜欢自己或伴侣采用腹腔镜手术,而 48.6%的人更喜欢阴道手术。
大多数普通妇产科医生会考虑向接受过微创妇科外科培训的专科医生转诊。报告接受了充分住院医师培训且更倾向于连续性护理或向其他外科专科医生转诊的医生不太可能向微创妇科外科专科医生转诊。