Michelle C Chan1, Jane A Schulz2, Cathy G Flood1, Rhonda J Rosychuk3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton AB; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton AB; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB; Women's and Children's Health Research Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB; Women's and Children's Health Research Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team care is becoming more popular for complex health issues, including pelvic floor dysfunction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the records of 207 patients attending a multidisciplinary pelvic floor dysfunction clinic. A telephone survey was also conducted. The outcomes investigated included conservative versus surgical management, comorbidities, number of specialists seen, and subjective patient feedback. RESULTS: The average patient was 59.9 years old and travelled an average distance of 128.6 km to attend the clinic. Common clinical presentations were urge urinary incontinence (58.9%) and stress urinary incontinence (54.6%). Ninety-three of 178 patients (52.2%) presented with at least two comorbidities. At the time of data collection, 52.2% of patients had opted for surgical management, 27.5% had chosen conservative management, and the remainder remained undecided. One hundred sixty-five women participated in the telephone survey and their responses were grouped into major themes: (1) wait times, (2) multidisciplinary clinic feedback, and (3) parking, patient education, and information distribution. CONCLUSION: Based on feedback, the majority of patients were accepting of a multidisciplinary approach to pelvic floor dysfunction and were satisfied with that approach.
BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team care is becoming more popular for complex health issues, including pelvic floor dysfunction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the records of 207 patients attending a multidisciplinary pelvic floor dysfunction clinic. A telephone survey was also conducted. The outcomes investigated included conservative versus surgical management, comorbidities, number of specialists seen, and subjective patient feedback. RESULTS: The average patient was 59.9 years old and travelled an average distance of 128.6 km to attend the clinic. Common clinical presentations were urge urinary incontinence (58.9%) and stress urinary incontinence (54.6%). Ninety-three of 178 patients (52.2%) presented with at least two comorbidities. At the time of data collection, 52.2% of patients had opted for surgical management, 27.5% had chosen conservative management, and the remainder remained undecided. One hundred sixty-five women participated in the telephone survey and their responses were grouped into major themes: (1) wait times, (2) multidisciplinary clinic feedback, and (3) parking, patient education, and information distribution. CONCLUSION: Based on feedback, the majority of patients were accepting of a multidisciplinary approach to pelvic floor dysfunction and were satisfied with that approach.