TY - JOUR
T1 - Adverse pregnancy outcomes including gestational diabetes and preeclampsia
T2 - Do primary care physicians refer to them in their medical files?
AU - Alon, Nachshol
AU - Tandeter, Howard
AU - Hod, Keren
AU - Freud, Tamar
AU - Sheiner, Eyal
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022/1/1
Y1 - 2022/1/1
N2 - Aims: Pregnancies complicated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) or preeclampsia should be considered risk factors for subsequent morbidity later in a women’s life. Appropriate screening tests have been recommended for these women. We sought to evaluate whether primary care physicians document diagnoses of GDM or preeclampsia in the medical files during the post-partum period and to elicit whether appropriate screening tests were performed. Materials and methods: The medical records of 352 women discharged from the maternity ward with a diagnosis of GDM or preeclampsia were examined 12 weeks post-partum. We recorded whether a primary care visit occurred, if a relevant diagnosis was documented and if screening tests were conducted. Results: In our cohort, 89.2% of the GDM group and 81.0% of the preeclampsia group visited a primary care physician at least once. About 12.9% (n = 25) of the GDM group and 12.7% (n = 20) of the preeclampsia group were given a correct diagnosis; 40.7% of the GDM group underwent a diabetes screening test and 27.8% of the preeclampsia group underwent a blood pressure measurement. Conclusion: We concluded that diagnoses of GDM and pre-eclampsia are not well-documented by primary physicians and that recommended screening tests are not being sufficiently performed.
AB - Aims: Pregnancies complicated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) or preeclampsia should be considered risk factors for subsequent morbidity later in a women’s life. Appropriate screening tests have been recommended for these women. We sought to evaluate whether primary care physicians document diagnoses of GDM or preeclampsia in the medical files during the post-partum period and to elicit whether appropriate screening tests were performed. Materials and methods: The medical records of 352 women discharged from the maternity ward with a diagnosis of GDM or preeclampsia were examined 12 weeks post-partum. We recorded whether a primary care visit occurred, if a relevant diagnosis was documented and if screening tests were conducted. Results: In our cohort, 89.2% of the GDM group and 81.0% of the preeclampsia group visited a primary care physician at least once. About 12.9% (n = 25) of the GDM group and 12.7% (n = 20) of the preeclampsia group were given a correct diagnosis; 40.7% of the GDM group underwent a diabetes screening test and 27.8% of the preeclampsia group underwent a blood pressure measurement. Conclusion: We concluded that diagnoses of GDM and pre-eclampsia are not well-documented by primary physicians and that recommended screening tests are not being sufficiently performed.
KW - Adverse pregnancy outcomes
KW - gestational diabetes
KW - post-partum screening
KW - preeclampsia
KW - primary care physician
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85119671782&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14767058.2021.2005023
DO - 10.1080/14767058.2021.2005023
M3 - Article
C2 - 34809522
AN - SCOPUS:85119671782
SN - 1476-7058
VL - 35
SP - 8803
EP - 8809
JO - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
JF - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
IS - 25
ER -