Danish general practitioners as gatekeepers for gynaecological patients in regions with different density of resident specialists in gynaecology: in which situations and to whom do they refer? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: There are large differences in the density of Resident Specialists in Gynaecology (RSG) in the various regions of Denmark. It is unknown if this inequality affects the General Practitioner (GP) referral patterns of gynaecological patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the GP referral patterns of gynaecological patients to the RSG or to the Hospital/Outpatient Clinic (HOC) in specific situations according to the regional density of RSGs. Moreover, to examine whether GPs prefer to refer to the HOC or to the RSG, or whether they were treated by the GP depending on the density of RSGs, specifically, in six benign gynaecological diagnoses. DESIGN: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. SETTING: In Denmark, GPs serve as gatekeepers to secondary care, being responsible for referrals to resident specialists and in- and outpatient hospital care. SUBJECTS: Five hundred Danish GPs were randomly selected and invited to take part in the questionnaire study. Main outcome measurements: Referral patterns: Own treatment, RSG, or HOC. RESULTS: GPs prefer to refer their gynaecologic patients to RSGs rather than to HOCs. In addition, the study shows the higher the density of RSGs, the more gynaecological patients are referred to the RSG. This also applies to the six diagnoses examined. CONCLUSION: To allow patients' equal access to specialist care, the density of RSGs must be equal all over the country.

Differences in the referral process from general practice to resident specialists in gynaecology depending on density of specialists and patients' socioeconomic status.

BACKGROUND: There are significant differences in the densities of resident specialists in gynaecology (RSGs) in various regions of Denmark. It is unclear whether this disparity affects gynaecological patients' experience of the referral process and whether it differs in terms of their socioeconomic status (SES). OBJECTIVE: To examine gynaecological patients' experiences of the referral process to an RSG concerning RSG density and patients' SES. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire and registry-based study. SETTING: In Denmark, general practitioners (GPs) serve as gatekeepers of secondary care and are responsible for referrals to resident specialists as well as inpatient and outpatient hospital care. SUBJECTS: A total of 2917 patients who consulted an RSG participated in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patients' experiences of referral to an RSG, waiting times, involvement, and how they experienced the referral process. RESULTS: Patients who lived in the highest density RSG region were referred to an RSG more promptly after the onset of symptoms, had to visit their GP less frequently to obtain a referral to the RSG, and rarely received a gynaecological examination by their GP compared with those living in regions with lower RSG densities. Moreover, their waiting times were shorter, and more often, the patients themselves proposed to be referred to an RSG. The findings show that RSG density had a greater impact on women's experiences than SES. CONCLUSION: To allow equal access to specialist care, RSG density must be equal across all regions in the country.

Danish women's preferences regarding gynecological examination support international recommendations: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Gynecological examinations (GEs) are challenging for many women. Several recommendations and guidelines have emerged, partly based on common sense and clinicians' consensus. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding women's opinions. Therefore, this study aimed to describe women's preferences and experiences in relation to GEs and investigate whether they are dependent on their socioeconomic status. METHODS: In Denmark, GEs are typically performed by general practitioners or resident specialists in gynecology (RSGs) in gynecological hospital departments. This cross-sectional questionnaire and register study included approximately 3000 randomly selected patients who visited six RSGs from January 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. The main outcome measurement involved women's preferences and experiences regarding GEs. RESULTS: Overall, 37% of the women thought that a changing room was important, 20% preferred a garment to cover themselves, 18% preferred a separate examination room, and 13% thought that the presence of a chaperone was important. Compared with working and retired women, more women outside the workforce felt insufficiently informed, considered their experience with RSGs unprofessional, and found GEs painful. CONCLUSION: Our results support existing recommendations regarding GEs and the related environment, confirming that privacy and modesty are factors to take into consideration as they are of concern for a relatively large group of women. Thus, providers should focus on women outside the workforce, because this group appears to feel vulnerable in this environment.