Appropriateness of referrals to a urogynecology practice
Introduction and hypothesis
The urogynecology subspecialty relies on appropriate referrals from their referral base. We sought to provide guidance for optimizing appropriate referrals to urogynecology by comparing pre-referral characteristics between appropriate and inappropriate referrals.
This retrospective cohort study examined predictors of appropriate urogynecology referrals. Appropriateness categorization was based upon pelvic floor disorder (PFD) symptoms and signs provided by the referring provider. Patients with both a PFD symptom and sign were considered “appropriate.” Patients with neither a PFD symptom nor sign were considered “inappropriate.” PFD symptoms were: vaginal bulge, voiding or defecatory dysfunction. PFD signs were: vaginal vault prolapse, urethral hypermobility, mesh/sling exposure, elevated post-void residual, positive standing stress test, abnormal urinalysis or urine culture-proven infection. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed with ANOVA and chi-square test, respectively. A logistic regression model to predict appropriateness was developed from variables identified from the bivariate analysis.
Bivariate predictors of an appropriate referral for 1716 study subjects were older age, prior overactive bladder medication use, MD/DO referrer source and OBGYN, urogynecology or urology referrer specialty. Our logistic regression model correctly classified referrals as appropriate in 93.6% of cases.
Age, anti-cholinergic medication use, referrer source and specialty are pre-initial visit predictors of urogynecology referral appropriateness. The predictor-generated model was successful in predicting referral appropriateness. Potential bias from information transfer issues, lack of pre-referral evaluation and referring provider unfamiliarity with urogynecology are possible reasons for inappropriate referrals and potential areas for improvement.
KeywordsUrogynecology Referrals Sub-specialist Appropriate Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 3.Geynisman-Tan J, Brown O, Mueller M, Leader-Cramer A, Dave B, Bochenska K, et al. Changing referral patterns to urogynecology. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000416.
- 7.Arboretti Giancristofaro R, Salmaso L. Model performance analysis and model validation in logistic regression. Statistica. 2007;63(2):375–396. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1973-2201/358.
- 8.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA. Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Continence program for women research group. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14(2):131–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Jacups SP, McConnon KM. Reducing ear, nose and throat (ENT) waitlists: implications of a referral audit. Health Policy. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.12.007.
- 20.Qaseem A, Dallas P, Forciea MA, Starkey M, Denberg TD, Shekelle P, et al. Nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence in women: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians Nonsurgical Management of Urinary Incontinence in women. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):429–40. https://doi.org/10.7326/m13-2410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar