Specialty-Specific Values Affecting the Management of Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids

Patient Experiences With a Multidisciplinary Fibroid Program

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Although medical, interventional, and surgical treatment options for fibroids have expanded over the last decade, many patients are not thoroughly counseled about all available therapies. Patients desire a more comprehensive approach with shared decision-making tailored to their health goals. The aim of this study is to assess patient knowledge regarding treatment options before and after consultation with a multidisciplinary fibroid center.

DESIGN

Prospective survey study.

SETTING

Academic medical center in New York, NY.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients who presented for initial consultation with a multidisciplinary fibroid program from July 2021 through January 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were offered same-day office consultation with a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) followed by a telemedicine visit with an interventional radiologist (IR) within 3 weeks of the appointment request. Collaborative discussions were held between providers regarding patient care. Patients were asked to complete the survey following both appointments. Data was collected regarding demographics, prior evaluation of fibroids, knowledge about treatment options, and overall experience.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients completed the survey (response rate 77%). A majority (55.9%) had known about their fibroids for at least 2 years. Most patients sought out the fibroid program for a 2nd (28.4%), 3rd (22.5%) or 4th (7.8%) opinion. Notably, 35.3% of patients who had previously been seen by an obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) were not offered any treatment. Of those who had been offered treatment, 24.5% were counseled on medical management with oral contraceptives, 28.4% on surgical options, and 5.9% on uterine artery embolization. Nearly all patients (86.3%) endorsed that they would not have sought 2 separate consultations had it not been for the program. Patients were overall well-informed after their experience, with 95.1% reporting they were more knowledgeable about their options and none reporting the 2 separate consults created more confusion for them.

CONCLUSION

Many patients with symptomatic fibroids seeking secondary opinions have not been adequately counseled on fibroid management options. A collaborative approach to fibroid management better educates patients, provides an opportunity to be thoroughly counseled by the specialists performing either surgical or interventional procedures, and increases patient knowledge about fibroid treatment options.

Evolving Referral Patterns and Management Following Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Fibroid Center: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background/Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate changes in the management of symptomatic fibroids after establishing a multidisciplinary fibroid center with minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) and interventional radiology (IR). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the fibroid center created in September 2020. Patients were offered same-day consults with both MIGS and IR providers. Data were collected for patients with initial consultations from January to June 2019 (pre-fibroid center) and from January to June 2021 (post-fibroid center). Results: Among 615 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 273 had consultations pre-center and 342 post-center. More patients seen post-center had previously attempted medical management (30.1% vs. 20.2%), with a significant proportion having no prior medical or surgical treatment (53.2% vs. 61.5%). Post-center, there were more MIGS consultations (65.5% vs. 53.1%) and a decrease in general gynecology (GYN) consultations (19.0% vs. 25.6%). More patients sought additional opinions post-center (83.6% vs. 67.0%), particularly with MIGS (58.8% vs. 37.0%). General GYNs referred to MIGS (79.3% vs. 73.1%) and IR specialists (16.0% vs. 13.0%) more often in 2021. In 2021, use of MRI increased (66.5% vs. 52.4%), and more patients underwent uterine artery embolization (UAE) within 1 year of consultation compared to the pre-center period (13.8% vs. 6.9%). Conclusions: Patients with symptomatic fibroids often seek the expertise of specialists to explore treatment options. A multidisciplinary fibroid center that integrates efforts of MIGS and IR enables thorough counseling and a rise in the utilization of minimally invasive procedures, including UAE.

The power of proximity: Effects of a multidisciplinary fibroid clinic on inter-specialty perceptions and practice patterns

Background

Multidisciplinary collaboration has generally been shown to have positive effects on healthcare but can be difficult to facilitate. This study assessed the effects of a multidisciplinary fibroid clinic on practice patterns and clinician perceptions to better understand drivers of interspecialty collaboration.

Materials and methods

Annual rates of hysterectomies, myomectomies, and uterine fibroid embolizations (UFEs) performed in an urban healthcare system were collected from 2012–2019. Rates of each procedure were compared over time before and after launching a multidisciplinary fibroid clinic at the academic medical center. Referral rates were also compared. The gynecologists and interventional radiologists (IRs) involved in the clinic were interviewed 2 years prior to and after the clinic launch about their approaches to fibroids and perceptions of others who treat this condition. A phenomenological approach was used to identify and compare themes within the interviews by two researchers with excellent inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.80).

Results and discussion

Annual rates of fibroid procedures increased over time (p<0.01) but the relative number of UFEs decreased (p = 0.01). UFE referrals by the clinic gynecologists significantly increased as did the number of combined fibroid procedures (p<0.01). However, the rates of one fibroid procedure relative to others were not different between the clinic and rest of the healthcare system (p = 0.55). Specialty-specific perceptions of fibroid treatments and inter-specialty dynamics did not change. Despite this, clinicians unanimously perceived the clinic and post-clinic practice patterns as positive and distinct from their previous work and relationships between gynecology and IR elsewhere. Limitations of this study included its single clinic design and potential confounder of differences in advertising pre- versus post-clinic.

Conclusion

Creating the right practice environment may be more important for fostering inter-specialty collaboration and work satisfaction than shared mental models or procedural volumes in certain practice settings.