Ectopic Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Management.

Ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized ovum implants outside of the uterine cavity. In the United States, the estimated prevalence of ectopic pregnancy is 1% to 2%, and ruptured ectopic pregnancy accounts for 2.7% of pregnancy-related deaths. Risk factors include a history of pelvic inflammatory disease, cigarette smoking, fallopian tube surgery, previous ectopic pregnancy, and infertility. Ectopic pregnancy should be considered in any patient presenting early in pregnancy with vaginal bleeding or lower abdominal pain in whom intrauterine pregnancy has not yet been established. The definitive diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy can be made with ultrasound visualization of a yolk sac and/or embryo in the adnexa. However, most ectopic pregnancies do not reach this stage. More often, patient symptoms combined with serial ultrasonography and trends in beta human chorionic gonadotropin levels are used to make the diagnosis. Pregnancy of unknown location refers to a transient state in which a pregnancy test is positive but ultrasonography shows neither intrauterine nor ectopic pregnancy. Serial beta human chorionic gonadotropin levels, serial ultrasonography, and, at times, uterine aspiration can be used to arrive at a definitive diagnosis. Treatment of diagnosed ectopic pregnancy includes medical management with intramuscular methotrexate, surgical management via salpingostomy or salpingectomy, and, in rare cases, expectant management. A patient with diagnosed ectopic pregnancy should be immediately transferred for surgery if she has peritoneal signs or hemodynamic instability, if the initial beta human chorionic gonadotropin level is high, if fetal cardiac activity is detected outside of the uterus on ultrasonography, or if there is a contraindication to medical management.

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Difficult Insertions and Removals.

The use of long-acting reversible contraception is on the rise across the United States and has contributed to a decrease in teen pregnancies. With the increased use of long-acting reversible contraception, physicians may encounter difficult insertions and removals of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the contraceptive implant. Uterine structure (e.g., extreme anteversion or retroversion, uterine tone during the postpartum period and breastfeeding) can pose challenges during IUD insertion. Special consideration is also needed for IUD insertions in patients who are transgender or gender nonconforming, such as psychosocial support and management of vaginal atrophy. Missing IUD strings may complicate removal, possibly requiring ultrasonography and use of instruments such as thread retrievers, IUD hooks, and alligator forceps. Regarding implant removal, those that are barely palpable (e.g., because of an overly deep insertion or excessive patient weight gain), removal may require ultrasonography, use of vas clamps and skin hooks, and extra dissection.

Office management of early pregnancy loss.

The management of early pregnancy loss used to be based largely in the hospital setting, but it has shifted to the outpatient setting, allowing women to remain under the care of their family physician throughout the miscarriage process. Up to 15 percent of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage, and as many as 80 percent of miscarriages occur in the first trimester, with chromosomal abnormalities as the leading cause. In general, no interventions have been proven to prevent miscarriage; occasionally women can modify their risk factors or receive treatment for relevant medical conditions. Unless products of conception are seen, the diagnosis of miscarriage is made with ultrasonography and, when ultrasonography is not available or is nondiagnostic, with measurement of beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin levels. Management options for early pregnancy loss include expectant management, medical management with misoprostol, and uterine aspiration. Expectant management is highly effective for the treatment of incomplete abortion, whereas misoprostol and uterine aspiration are more effective for the management of anembryonic gestation and embryonic demise. Misoprostol in a dose of 800 mcg administered vaginally is effective and well-tolerated. Compared with dilation and curettage in the operating room, uterine aspiration is the preferred procedure for early pregnancy loss; aspiration is equally safe, quicker to perform, more cost-effective, and amenable to use in the primary care setting. All management options are equally safe; thus, patient preference should guide treatment choice.

Preventing gaps when switching contraceptives.

Unintended pregnancy can occur when women stop one birth control method before starting another. To prevent gaps in contraception, physicians should ask women regularly about adverse effects, cost, difficulty remembering the next dose, and other issues that affect adherence. Women who want to change contraceptive methods need accurate advice about how to do so. Some contraception transitions require an overlap between the old method and the new method. To switch safely from one contraceptive to another without overlap, women may go directly from the old method to the new method, abstaining from sexual intercourse or using a barrier method, such as condoms or spermicide, for the first seven days.

Barriers and Enablers to Family Physicians' Provision of Early Pregnancy Loss Management in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is a common experience. Treatment options include expectant management, medication, and uterine aspiration. Although family physicians can offer comprehensive EPL treatment in their office-based settings, few actually do. This study explored the postresidency provision of EPL management and factors that inhibit or enable providing this care among family physicians trained in early abortion during residency. METHODS: Using an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, we studied a sample of family physicians trained in early abortion during residency. We initially interviewed a subset trained in uterine aspiration during residency, then surveyed the entire sample. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using grounded theory; results informed survey development. On survey responses, we used Pearson χ2 to examine the association between certain variables and provision of EPL care options. RESULTS: Most of the 15 interview and 231 survey respondents provided expectant management of EPL. Of the survey respondents, 47.2% provided medication management and 11.4% manual vacuum aspiration. Key challenges and facilitators involved referral, training, ultrasound access, and managing systems-level issues. In bivariate analyses, providing prenatal care, offering abortion care, access to ultrasound, and competency were positively associated with providing EPL management options (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical training alone is insufficient to expand access to comprehensive EPL care in family medicine office-based settings. Supporting family physicians during and after residency with training and technical assistance to address barriers to care may strengthen their abilities to champion practice change and expand access to comprehensive EPL management options.

US clinicians' perspectives on how mifepristone regulations affect access to medication abortion and early pregnancy loss care in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Protocols including mifepristone are the most effective medication regimens for medication abortion and early pregnancy loss (EPL) management. Both can be safely and effectively offered in primary care settings. Despite mifepristone's excellent safety record, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) heavily regulates provision. This exploratory study examines US primary care clinicians' perspectives on the effects of mifepristone restrictions, including FDA regulations, on access to medication abortion and EPL management in primary care. STUDY DESIGN: In 2019, we conducted an online qualitative survey of US primary care clinicians recruited from six reproductive health-focused listservs. Open-ended questions queried about barriers to providing mifepristone and effects on patients when unable to access mifepristone in primary care. We iteratively coded and analyzed qualitative data using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of our analytic sample of 113 respondents, one-third had mifepristone available in their current primary practice setting. Key barriers to provision stemmed from the FDA rule to stock and dispense mifepristone onsite, including logistical difficulties and resistance from health center leadership. Clinicians believed that lack of mifepristone in primary care resulted in negative patient experiences, including disrupted continuity of care, medically-unnecessary appointments, and undesired aspiration procedures. CONCLUSIONS: FDA regulations that inhibit mifepristone provision in primary care create structural barriers to provision. This may result in physical, emotional, and financial burdens for patients. IMPLICATIONS: When mifepristone is unavailable in primary care, some patients in need of abortion or EPL care may experience physical, emotional, and financial harms. Removing FDA restrictions is a critical step in reducing primary care barriers to mifepristone provision and improving access to timely, patient-centered medication abortion and EPL care.

Effectiveness of clinical decision support to enhance delivery of family planning services in primary care settings.

PURPOSE: There is a need to improve delivery of family planning services, including preconception and contraception services, in primary care. We assessed whether a clinician-facing clinical decision support implemented in a family medicine staffed primary care network improved provision of family planning services for reproductive-aged female patients, and differed in effect for certain patients or clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic study with difference-in-differences design to estimate, at the visit-level, the clinical decision support's effect on documenting the provision of family planning services 52 weeks prior to and after implementation. We also used logistic regression with a sample subset to evaluate intervention effect on the patient-level. RESULTS: 27,817 eligible patients made 91,185 visits during the study period. Overall, unadjusted documentation of family planning services increased by 2.7 percentage points (55.7% pre-intervention to 58.4% intervention). In the adjusted analysis, documentation increased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI: 2.24, 4.63). The intervention effect varied across sites at the visit-level, ranging from a -1.2 to +6.5 percentage point change. Modification of effect by race, insurance, and site were substantial, but not by age group nor ethnicity. Additionally, patient-level subset analysis showed that those exposed to the intervention had 1.26 times the odds of having family planning services documented after implementation compared to controls (95% CI: 1.17, 1.36). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision support modestly improved documentation of family planning services in our primary care network; effect varied across sites. IMPLICATIONS: Integrating a family planning services clinical decision support into the electronic medical record at primary care sites may increase the provision of preconception and/or contraception services for women of reproductive age. Further study should explore intervention effect at sites with lower initial provision of family planning services.

Intention to provide abortion upon completing family medicine residency and subsequent abortion provision: a 5-year follow-up survey.

OBJECTIVE: Among family physicians who graduated from residencies with abortion training, we explore the association between intention to provide abortion at the end of residency and abortion provision 5 years postresidency. STUDY DESIGN: We invited 2009-2012 graduates from US family medicine residency programs with a required opt-out abortion training rotation or elective abortion training opportunities, and who had completed a baseline end-of-residency survey (N=477) to take our follow-up survey 5 years postresidency (2014-2017). We used logistic regression to examine the association between intention to provide abortion postresidency and abortion provision 5 years later. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two of 477 (36.1%) family physicians responded to our survey. More responders compared to nonresponders had intended to provide uterine aspiration and medication abortion at baseline (p≪.01) and attended residency in states considered hostile and middle ground toward abortion rights (p=.03). Of the 155 eligible respondents for analysis, 27.1% offered some type of abortion care in their practice. Of those that provided abortion, 100% provided medication abortion and 71.4% uterine aspiration. Most respondents that provided uterine aspiration abortion did so in abortion/family planning clinics or in sites that already established routine abortion care. Those who had intended to provide any abortion care at baseline had 4.03 times the odds of providing any abortion care 5 years later (95% confidence interval: 1.72-9.47). Administrative and systems-level barriers to integrate abortion were mentioned most frequently compared to personal beliefs or safety factors to explain why respondents did not provide abortion. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between intention to provide abortion after residency and providing abortion in practice 5 years later. However, only 27.1% of respondents provided some abortion care. Factors beyond intention to provide care appear to inhibit or facilitate family physicians' abilities to practice abortion in primary care. IMPLICATIONS: Supporting family physicians who express intention to provide abortion after residency with additional training and technical assistance may contribute toward expanding access and availability of abortion care.

Feasibility study of family planning services screening as clinical decision support at an urban Federally Qualified Health Center network.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the feasibility of an intervention introducing family planning services screening clinical decision support to improve provision of contraception and/or preconception services for women of reproductive age in our primary care Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) network. STUDY DESIGN: We implemented a family planning services screening prompt for support staff to ask women 13-44 years at nonobstetric visits at specified time intervals. The response was displayed in the electronic medical record for the provider to review, linked to a documentation tool. We evaluated staff comfort with the screening before and after rollout at all seven FQHC sites. At the pilot site, we examined implementation feasibility by assessing screening rate and the outcome measure of family planning (contraception and/or preconception) documentation during visits by women 13-44 years before and during the intervention's first year. RESULTS: At baseline, support staff reported high level of comfort (60% very, 25% somewhat) in asking the family planning services screening question; this increased to 80% reporting they were "very comfortable" in the postsurvey (p = <.01). From mid-December 2016-mid-January 2018, the screening question was displayed for 1503 visits at the pilot site, of which 96% had a documented response. Family planning documentation rate at the pilot site showed a 6% increase from 64% during the preintervention period to 70% during the 13-month intervention period (p<.01). Time series analysis demonstrated more positive upward trend attributed to the intervention period (intervention R2=0.15 vs. preintervention R2=0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated high staff acceptability of the intervention at all sites and a high screening rate with a significant increase in family planning documentation rate at the pilot site during the intervention period. This suggests that this family planning services screening decision support intervention is feasible in an FQHC setting. IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of a family planning services screening decision support intervention is feasible in an FQHC setting. Further evaluation of performance at multiple sites, accounting for variable site characteristics, is needed.

Two distinct oral routes of misoprostol in mifepristone medical abortion: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of oral immediately swallowed and buccal misoprostol 800 mcg after mifepristone 200 mg for terminating pregnancy through 63 days since the last menstrual period (LMP). METHODS: This seven-site study randomly assigned 966 women seeking abortions to oral or buccal misoprostol 800 mcg 24-36 hours after mifepristone 200 mg with 7-14-day follow-up. RESULTS: Success rates in the oral and buccal groups were 91.3% (389 of 426) and 96.2% (405 of 421), respectively (P=.003; relative risk [RR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.98). Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 3.5% (15 of 426) of women who took oral misoprostol compared with 1.0% (4 of 421) of women in the buccal group (P=.012; RR 3.71, 95% CI 1.24-11.07). Through 49 days since the LMP, oral and buccal regimens performed similarly, but success with oral misoprostol decreased as pregnancy advanced. In pregnancies of 57-63 days since the LMP, success with oral misoprostol fell below 90%, whereas that with buccal remained high (oral 85.1% [97 of 114], buccal 94.8% [109 of 115], P=.015, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98). Furthermore, in this gestational age group, there were significantly more ongoing pregnancies among women who took misoprostol orally (7.9% [9 of 114]) compared with buccally (1.7% [2 of 115]; P=.029, RR 4.54, 95% CI 1.0-20.55). Adverse effect profiles were similar, although fever and chills were reported approximately 10% more often among women who took buccal misoprostol. Satisfaction and acceptability were high for both methods. CONCLUSION: Buccal misoprostol 800 mcg after mifepristone 200 mg is a good option for medical abortion through 63 days since the LMP. Oral misoprostol 800 mcg is also a safe and effective alternative, although success rates diminish with increasing gestational age. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00386867 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Benefits of comprehensive reproductive health education in family medicine residency.

Given the high prevalence of unintended pregnancy and early pregnancy failure, family physicians frequently encounter these clinical problems. Early abortion care and miscarriage management are within the scope of family medicine, yet few family medicine residency programs' curricula routinely include training in these skills. Comprehensive reproductive health education for family physicians could benefit patients by improving access to safe care for unintended pregnancy and early pregnancy loss and by improving continuity of care, especially for rural and low-income women. By promoting reflection on conflicts between personal beliefs and responsibility to patients, training in options counseling and abortion care fosters patient-centered care and informed decision making. Managing pregnancy loss and termination also improves skills in patient-centered counseling and primary care gynecology. Multiple studies document the feasibility and success of several training models for abortion and miscarriage management in family medicine. Incorporating comprehensive reproductive health care into family medicine residency training enables family physicians to provide a full range of reproductive health services.

Women's experiences with early pregnancy loss in the emergency room: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the reasons why women present to the Emergency Room (ER) for Early Pregnancy Loss (EPL)-related care, how they perceive care and counseling there, and their overall experience during and after their visit. STUDY DESIGN: This qualitative study utilized semi-structured telephone interviews. Participants were recruited in a large urban ER; women who experienced EPL were interviewed by telephone about their experiences 1-3 weeks after their visit. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded by two independent coders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This qualitative study utilized semi-structured interviews without the use of formal outcome measurement tools. RESULTS: Of the sixty-seven women recruited, ten completed the full telephone interview. Interview participants' responses were grouped into four categories: Feelings about EPL, reasons for going to the ER, experience in the ER, and experience after leaving the ER. Women had mixed feelings about their ER experiences; many reported chaos, lack of information or lack of emotional support, while a few felt informed and supported. Many did not know much about EPL before their experience. CONCLUSIONS: ER care for women experiencing suspected or confirmed EPL may not be addressing the emotional needs and knowledge gaps of women. Patient education, emotional support, and clear plans for outpatient follow up are critical. Further research is needed to guide interventions to improve care.

Emergency contraception, myths and facts.

Emergency contraception has the potential to reduce the United States unintended pregnancy rate by half. This article discusses the evidence on the safety and efficacy of emergency contraception, its side effects, as well as its mechanisms of action. Emergency contraception availability presents many opportunities for enhanced contraceptive care, beyond the obvious lapse in condom use, and evidence is lacking for contraindications to this expanded role. This article concludes that clinicians caring for women of reproductive age should recognize the importance of ready access to this medication to help prevent unintended pregnancies.

Beyond the Surface: Care Seeking Among Patients Initiating Contraceptive Implant in an Urban Federally Qualified Health Center Network.

PURPOSE: To describe rates of and reasons for follow-up among adolescents and adults receiving contraceptive implants in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). METHODS: Retrospective comparison of patient-initiated implant-related contacts during the 6 months postinsertion among adolescents (110) and adults (154) who had implants placed at a FQHC network. RESULTS: Forty percent of adolescents and 26% of adults initiated follow-up ( P = .016). Bleeding changes and discussing removal were the most common reasons for follow-up for both groups. Adolescents (5.5%) and adults (9.0%) had similar removal rates ( P = .348). However, among patients who discussed implant removal, adults were more likely to have removals compared with adolescents ( P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Other FQHCs may anticipate a similar experience to ours, where adolescents may be more likely than adults to initiate implant-related follow up, with removal rates of less than 10% at 6 months. Further study of physician decision making and patient autonomy regarding implantable contraception removal requests is warranted.

Hospital religious affiliation and emergency contraceptive prescribing practices.

With access to reproductive health care eroding, examination of prescribing of contraception, including emergency contraception (EC), is important. We examined whether working in a family practice affiliated with a religious institution changes the likelihood of a provider prescribing EC. Our survey asked about EC prescribing practices in a range of situations. As predicted, practitioners in non-religiously affiliated practices reported higher rates of prescribing EC than those in religiously affiliated practices. In both cases, however, the practitioners' prescribing patterns were inadequate.