Managing children with daytime urinary incontinence: a survey of Dutch general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, parents of children with daytime urinary incontinence (UI) first consult general practitioners (GPs). However, GPs need more specific guidelines for daytime UI management, resulting in care and referral decisions being made without clear guidance. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify Dutch GP considerations when treating and referring a child with daytime UI. METHODS: We invited GPs who referred at least one child aged 4-18 years with daytime UI to secondary care. They were asked to complete a questionnaire about the referred child and the management of daytime UI in general. RESULTS: Of 244 distributed questionnaires, 118 (48.4%) were returned by 94 GPs. Most reported taking a history and performing basic diagnostic tests like urine tests (61.0%) and physical examinations (49.2%) before referral. Treatment mostly involved lifestyle advice, with only 17.8% starting medication. Referrals were usually at the explicit wish of the child/parent (44.9%) or because of symptom persistence despite treatment (39.0%). GPs usually referred children to a paediatrician (n = 99, 83.9%), only referring to a urologist in specific situations. Almost half (41.4%) of the GPs did not feel competent to treat children with daytime UI and more than half (55.7%) wanted a clinical practice guideline. In the discussion, we explore the generalisability of our findings to other countries. CONCLUSION: GPs usually refer children with daytime UI to a paediatrician after a basic diagnostic assessment, usually without offering treatment. Parental or child demand is the primary stimulus for referral.

Primary care diagnostic and treatment pathways in Dutch women with urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how GPs manage women with urinary incontinence (UI) in the Netherlands and to assess whether this is in line with the relevant Dutch GP guideline. Because UI has been an underreported and undertreated problem for decades despite appropriate guidelines being created for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Routine primary care data for 2017 in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: We included the primary care records of women aged 18-75 years with at least one contact registered for UI, and then extracted information about baseline characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, and referral to pelvic physiotherapy or secondary care. RESULTS: In total, 374 records were included for women aged 50.3 ± 15.1 years. GPs diagnosed 31.0%, 15.2%, and 15.0% women with stress, urgency, or mixed UI, respectively; no diagnosis of type was recorded in 40.4% of women. Urinalysis was the most frequently used diagnostic test (42.5%). Education was the most common treatment, offered by 17.9% of GPs; however, no treatment or referral was reported in 15.8% of cases. As many as 28.7% and 21.7% of women were referred to pelvic physiotherapy and secondary care, respectively. CONCLUSION: Female UI is most probably not managed in line with the relevant Dutch GP guideline. It is also notable that Dutch GPs often fail to report the type of UI, to use available diagnostic approaches, and to provide appropriate education. Moreover, GPs referred to specialists too often, especially for the management of urgency UI.Key pointsUrinary incontinence (UI) has been an underreported and undertreated problem for decades. Despite various guidelines, UI often lies outside the GPs comfort zone.•According to this study: general practitioners do not treat urinary incontinence according to guidelines.•The type of incontinence is frequently not reported and diagnostic approaches are not fully used.•We believe that increased awareness will help improve treatment and avoidable suffering.