Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care: qualitative interview study examining experiences of patients and healthcare professionals.

Sarah Milosevic, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Bethan Pell, Elizabeth Cain, Robyn Hackett, Ffion Murdoch, Haroon Ahmed, A Joy Allen, Alison Bray, Samantha Clarke, Marcus J Drake, Michael Drinnan, Kerenza Hood, Tom Schatzberger, Yemisi Takwoingi, Emma Thomas-Jones, Raymond White, Adrian Edwards, Chris Harding
{"title":"Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care: qualitative interview study examining experiences of patients and healthcare professionals.","authors":"Sarah Milosevic,&nbsp;Natalie Joseph-Williams,&nbsp;Bethan Pell,&nbsp;Elizabeth Cain,&nbsp;Robyn Hackett,&nbsp;Ffion Murdoch,&nbsp;Haroon Ahmed,&nbsp;A Joy Allen,&nbsp;Alison Bray,&nbsp;Samantha Clarke,&nbsp;Marcus J Drake,&nbsp;Michael Drinnan,&nbsp;Kerenza Hood,&nbsp;Tom Schatzberger,&nbsp;Yemisi Takwoingi,&nbsp;Emma Thomas-Jones,&nbsp;Raymond White,&nbsp;Adrian Edwards,&nbsp;Chris Harding","doi":"10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Invasive urodynamics is used to investigate the causes of lower urinary tract symptoms; a procedure usually conducted in secondary care by specialist practitioners. No study has yet investigated the feasibility of carrying out this procedure in a non-specialist setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore, using qualitative methodology, the feasibility and acceptability of conducting invasive urodynamic testing in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted during the pilot phase of the PriMUS study, in which men experiencing bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms underwent invasive urodynamic testing along with a series of simple index tests in a primary care setting. Interviewees were 25 patients invited to take part in the PriMUS study and 18 healthcare professionals involved in study delivery. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients generally found the urodynamic procedure acceptable and valued the primary care setting due to its increased accessibility and familiarity. Despite some logistical issues, facilitating invasive urodynamic testing in primary care was also a positive experience for urodynamic nurses. Initial issues with general practitioners receiving and utilising the results of urodynamic testing may have limited the potential benefit to some patients. Effective approaches to study recruitment included emphasising the benefits of the urodynamic test and maintaining contact with potential participants by telephone. Patients' relationship with their general practitioner was an important influence on study participation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to benefit patients. Facilitating study procedures in a familiar primary care setting can impact positively on research recruitment. However, it is vital that there is a support network for urodynamic nurses and expertise available to help interpret urodynamic results.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":" ","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Invasive urodynamics is used to investigate the causes of lower urinary tract symptoms; a procedure usually conducted in secondary care by specialist practitioners. No study has yet investigated the feasibility of carrying out this procedure in a non-specialist setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore, using qualitative methodology, the feasibility and acceptability of conducting invasive urodynamic testing in primary care.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted during the pilot phase of the PriMUS study, in which men experiencing bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms underwent invasive urodynamic testing along with a series of simple index tests in a primary care setting. Interviewees were 25 patients invited to take part in the PriMUS study and 18 healthcare professionals involved in study delivery. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach.

Results: Patients generally found the urodynamic procedure acceptable and valued the primary care setting due to its increased accessibility and familiarity. Despite some logistical issues, facilitating invasive urodynamic testing in primary care was also a positive experience for urodynamic nurses. Initial issues with general practitioners receiving and utilising the results of urodynamic testing may have limited the potential benefit to some patients. Effective approaches to study recruitment included emphasising the benefits of the urodynamic test and maintaining contact with potential participants by telephone. Patients' relationship with their general practitioner was an important influence on study participation.

Conclusions: Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to benefit patients. Facilitating study procedures in a familiar primary care setting can impact positively on research recruitment. However, it is vital that there is a support network for urodynamic nurses and expertise available to help interpret urodynamic results.

在初级保健中进行侵入性尿动力学:质性访谈研究,考察患者和医疗保健专业人员的经验。
背景:侵入性尿动力学用于研究下尿路症状的原因;一种通常由专科医生在二级护理中进行的程序。目前还没有研究调查在非专业环境中实施这一程序的可行性。因此,本研究的目的是利用定性方法,探讨在初级保健中进行有创尿动力学测试的可行性和可接受性。方法:在PriMUS研究的试点阶段进行了半结构化访谈,在初级保健机构中,经历恼人的下尿路症状的男性接受了侵入性尿动力学测试以及一系列简单的指数测试。受访者包括25名受邀参加PriMUS研究的患者和18名参与研究交付的医疗保健专业人员。访谈录音,逐字抄录,并采用框架方法进行分析。结果:患者普遍认为尿动力学手术是可接受的,并重视初级保健设置,因为它增加了可及性和熟悉性。尽管存在一些后勤问题,但在初级保健中促进侵入性尿动力学测试对尿动力学护士来说也是一种积极的体验。全科医生接受和使用尿动力学测试结果的最初问题可能限制了对某些患者的潜在益处。招募研究人员的有效方法包括强调尿动力学测试的好处,并通过电话与潜在的参与者保持联系。患者与全科医生的关系是影响研究参与的重要因素。结论:在初级保健中进行侵入性尿动力学是可行和可接受的,并有可能使患者受益。在熟悉的初级保健环境中促进研究程序可以对研究招募产生积极影响。然而,至关重要的是,有一个支持网络的尿动力学护士和专业知识,以帮助解释尿动力学结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信