Ziegelmann, M J

Abstract Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) stems from a variety of etiologies and often requires a multidisciplinary approach to optimize patient care. Objective We sought to assess attitudes and confidence regarding the treatment of erectile dysfunction across different provider types. Methods Responses were obtained through an anonymous, email-based survey of our institution's providers in the disciplines of urology, internal medicine, and family medicine. We created a novel tool of 25 5-point Likert scale questions regarding ED treatment. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test and sorted by respondent specialty. Ethical Committee approval was obtained before study. Results 138 health care providers returned surveys, including 58 internists (IM), 47 family physicians (FP), and 33 urologists (GU). FP and IM responses showed significant overlap with a few key statistically significant differences. In general, IM was much more positive in VED, penile implant as an option, penile implant satisfaction, and penile implant risk. 37% of IM agreed or strongly agreed inflatable penile prosthesis risk is low vs 6% FP (p = .0032). IM also more strongly supported team-based care and referral to specialists IM 71% vs. 51% FP (p = .0012). (Figures) When comparing GU versus FP + IM 24/25 questions revealed statistically significant differences revealing greater GU confidence and knowledge about ED with only the importance of a team-based approach not differing. Noteworthy points include 46% vs. 18% confidence for a detailed sexual history for GU vs. FP + IM (all other points % and same provider sequence). IIEF usage and familiarity were 61 vs. 3 and 88 vs. 18, respectively. 100 and 85 strongly/agreed that good options remained after pills failed. Regarding inflatable penile prosthesis, agreement or strong agreement for patient willingness to undergo surgery for ED 67 vs. 13; patient satisfaction 91 vs. 25, partner satisfaction 80 vs. 25; and would repeat surgery or recommend to a friend was 82 vs. 17. Finally, and perhaps most notably 83 vs. 11 of providers were aware that Medicare covered implants. (Figures). Conclusions Conclusions This survey reveals significant knowledge gaps for treatment options and outcomes for ED. Targeted provider education, particularly about penile prostheses, could optimize patient care. Disclosure No

ABSTRACT Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) stems from a variety of etiologies and often requires a multidisciplinary approach to optimize patient care. Objective We sought to assess attitudes and confidence regarding the treatment of erectile dysfunction across different provider types. Methods Anonymous, email-based survey of physicians and advanced practice providers in the disciplines of urology, internal medicine, and family medicine. Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistical analysis of survey response data was performed. Results With 76 providers on this ongoing survey including 31 internists, 24 family physicians, and 21 urologists, 88% of providers believed there to be good options for erectile dysfunction after failing pills. Figure 1 shows attitudes of the modalities of “good” options and confidence in the ability to counsel about these options. Regarding if most patients report willingness to consider surgical intervention for ED when counseled about it an equal portion of providers had positive, neutral, and negative feedback. Figure 2 lists other specific attitudes and opinions about penile prosthesis (IPP) implants. Moreover, 78% emphasized the necessity of a multidisciplinary team-based approach to ED patients. However, only 30% of the participants were in agreement with referrals to specialists in sexual health including urologists. Conclusions This survey indicates a knowledge gap and low comfort level in 2nd and 3rd line ED treatments. Focused education on penile implant outcomes appears particularly helpful. Disclosure No