Patient satisfaction with a multidisciplinary colorectal and urogynaecology service

  • Bobby D. O’LearyEmail author
  • Gerard J. Agnew
  • Myra Fitzpatrick
  • Ann M. Hanly
Brief Report



Traditionally, the pelvic floor has been described as three separate compartments and problems in each compartment were managed separately. A more contemporary approach is to identify the entire pelvic floor as a single dynamic compartment. Multidisciplinary pelvic floor clinics such as ours with the support of physiotherapy, clinical nurse specialists, urodynamics, and endo-anal ultrasound are uncommon. The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with a joint colorectal and urogynaecology clinic.


All women who attended our service in 2015 were identified. Women who saw both a colorectal surgeon and urogynaecologist at the same clinic were included. The Satisfaction with Outpatient Services questionnaire, a multi-dimensional outpatient survey, was mailed to all women.


A total of 364 new women attended our service in 2015. One hundred thirty-six (35.2%) saw both a colorectal surgeon and urogynaecologist at the same visit. There was a 64% (87/136) response rate to the questionnaire.

Overall, all questions regarding their attendance were responded to positively by 94% (82/87) of women. Confidence and trust in the doctor examining and treating them was reported by all women. Seeing multiple specialists was of benefit to 97% (84/87) of women and 94% (82/87) would recommend the Pelvic Floor Centre.


There is a high level of satisfaction amongst women attending our outpatient service. Being seen by multiple specialities at a single clinic was felt to be of benefit by the majority of women and all expressed physician confidence. Our multidisciplinary service may reduce waiting times, increase satisfaction, and is likely cost-effective.


Multidisciplinary care Patient satisfaction Pelvic floor dysfunction Urogynaecology 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    DeLancey JOL (2005) The hidden epidemic of pelvic floor dysfunction: achievable goals for improved prevention and treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1488–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER (2009) Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol 114(6):1278–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dieter AA, Wilkins MF, Wu JM (2015) Epidemiological trends and future care needs for pelvic floor disorders. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 27(5):380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vogenberg FR, Santilli J (2018) Healthcare trends for 2018. Am Health Drug Benefits 11(1):48–54Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW (2009) Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet. 374(9696):1196–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirby AC, Luber KM, Menefee SA (2013) An update on the current and future demand for care of pelvic floor disorders in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209(6):584.e1–584.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keegan O, McGee HM (2003) A guide to hospital outpatient satisfaction surveys: practical recommendations and the satisfaction with outpatients’ (SWOP) questionnaire. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, DublinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, Patton JT, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW, Howie CR (2013) What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 3(4):e002525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pihl K, Roos EM, Nissen N, Jørgensen U, Schjerning J, Thorlund JB (2016) Over-optimistic patient expectations of recovery and leisure activities after arthroscopic meniscus surgery. Acta Orthop 87(6):615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA (1997) Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 50(10):1129–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horvath LE, Yordan E, Malhotra D, Leyva I, Bortel K, Schalk D, Mellinger P, Huml M, Kesslering C, Huml J (2010) Multidisciplinary care in the oncology setting: historical perspective and data from lung and gynecology multidisciplinary clinics. J Oncol Pract 6(6):e21–e26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raffi F, Amer S (2011) Endometriosis. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 21(4):112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pelvic Floor CentreSt. Michael’s HospitalDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations