Jasmine Abdulcadir1, Adeline Dugerdil2, Michel Boulvain3, Michal Yaron3, Christiane Margairaz4, Olivier Irion3, Patrick Petignat3. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: jasmine.abdulcadir@hcuge.ch. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Department of Community Medicine and Primary Care, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate missed opportunities for diagnosing female genital mutilation (FGM) at an obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) department in Switzerland. METHODS: In a retrospective study, we included 129 consecutive women with FGM who attended the FGM outpatient clinic at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the University Hospitals of Geneva between 2010 and 2012. The medical files of all women who had undergone at least 1 previous gynecologic exam performed by an OB/GYN doctor or a midwife at the study institution were reviewed. The type of FGM reported in the files was considered correct if it corresponded to that reported by the specialized gynecologist at the FGM clinic, according to WHO classification. RESULTS: In 48 (37.2%) cases, FGM was not mentioned in the medical file. In 34 (26.4%) women, the diagnosis was correct. FGM was identified but erroneously classified in 28 (21.7%) cases. There were no factors (women's characteristics or FGM type) associated with missed diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Opportunities to identify FGM are frequently missed. Measures should be taken to improve FGM diagnosis and care.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate missed opportunities for diagnosing female genital mutilation (FGM) at an obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) department in Switzerland. METHODS: In a retrospective study, we included 129 consecutive women with FGM who attended the FGM outpatient clinic at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the University Hospitals of Geneva between 2010 and 2012. The medical files of all women who had undergone at least 1 previous gynecologic exam performed by an OB/GYN doctor or a midwife at the study institution were reviewed. The type of FGM reported in the files was considered correct if it corresponded to that reported by the specialized gynecologist at the FGM clinic, according to WHO classification. RESULTS: In 48 (37.2%) cases, FGM was not mentioned in the medical file. In 34 (26.4%) women, the diagnosis was correct. FGM was identified but erroneously classified in 28 (21.7%) cases. There were no factors (women's characteristics or FGM type) associated with missed diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Opportunities to identify FGM are frequently missed. Measures should be taken to improve FGM diagnosis and care.
Authors: Ramin Kawous; Maria E T C van den Muijsenbergh; Diana Geraci; Kyra R M Hendriks; Livia E Ortensi; Femke Hilverda; Alex Burdorf Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: M Idoia Ugarte-Gurrutxaga; Brígida Molina-Gallego; Laura Mordillo-Mateos; Sagrario Gómez-Cantarino; M Carmen Solano-Ruiz; Gonzalo Melgar de Corral Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-08 Impact factor: 3.390