Display options
Cite
Milosevic S, Joseph-Williams N, Pell B, et al. Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care: qualitative interview study examining experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. Diagn Progn Res. 2021;5(1):10doi: 10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y.
Milosevic, S., Joseph-Williams, N., Pell, B., Cain, E., Hackett, R., Murdoch, F., Ahmed, H., Allen, A. J., Bray, A., Clarke, S., Drake, M. J., Drinnan, M., Hood, K., Schatzberger, T., Takwoingi, Y., Thomas-Jones, E., White, R., Edwards, A., & Harding, C. (2021). Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care: qualitative interview study examining experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. Diagnostic and prognostic research, 5(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y
Milosevic, Sarah, et al. "Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care: qualitative interview study examining experiences of patients and healthcare professionals." Diagnostic and prognostic research vol. 5,1 (2021): 10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y
Milosevic S, Joseph-Williams N, Pell B, Cain E, Hackett R, Murdoch F, Ahmed H, Allen AJ, Bray A, Clarke S, Drake MJ, Drinnan M, Hood K, Schatzberger T, Takwoingi Y, Thomas-Jones E, White R, Edwards A, Harding C. Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care: qualitative interview study examining experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. Diagn Progn Res. 2021 May 18;5(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y. PMID: 34006320; PMCID: PMC8130146.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Diagn Progn Res. 2021 May 18;5(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y.

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

Diagnostic and prognostic research

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

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. [email protected].
  2. PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
  3. Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
  4. NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
  5. Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
  6. Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
  7. North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, UK.
  8. Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  9. Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
  10. Corbridge Health Centre, NHS Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group, Newcastle Road, Corbridge, Northumberland, UK.
  11. Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  12. PPI Representative, formerly of Grampian University Hospital Trust, Biomedical Physics and Bioengineering, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
  13. Department of Urology, Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust, Newcastle Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

PMID: 34006320 PMCID: PMC8130146 DOI: 10.1186/s41512-021-00100-y

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.

Keywords: Lower urinary tract symptoms; Primary care; Qualitative research; Urodynamics

References

  1. Urology. 2015 Mar;85(3):547-51 - PubMed
  2. BJU Int. 2006 Jan;97(1):96-100 - PubMed
  3. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015 Feb;34(2):156-60 - PubMed
  4. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018 Apr;100(4):326-329 - PubMed
  5. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Jan;38(1):320-329 - PubMed
  6. J Urol. 2005 Feb;173(2):555-9 - PubMed
  7. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 Nov-Dec;9(11-12):372-8 - PubMed
  8. BJU Int. 2007 Feb;99(2):347-54 - PubMed
  9. Fam Pract. 2007 Sep;24(4):388-94 - PubMed
  10. J Adv Nurs. 2000 Dec;32(6):1356-63 - PubMed
  11. Rev Urol. 2005;7 Suppl 6:S14-21 - PubMed
  12. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009 May;30(3):227-32 - PubMed
  13. BMJ Open. 2013 Jun 20;3(6): - PubMed
  14. BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 30;10(6):e037634 - PubMed
  15. BJU Int. 2009 Aug;104(3):352-60 - PubMed
  16. Urology. 2000 Jul;56(1):37-9 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support