Dr. Lori Gore-Green | Women's Health Professional

Dr. Lori Gore-Green's Portfolio of Experience as a Women's Health Professional

Rural Areas Suffer Drop in OB/GYN Recruitment

by

Dr. Lori Gore-GreenTraveling for healthcare services may be common for patients living in remote areas, but the difficulties accessing quality OB/GYN services has a direct link with an increased death rate among new mothers and their babies.

The face of the healthcare industry has been steadily changing over the last 30 years. As world-class tertiary hospitals pay doctors bigger salaries and buy out surrounding practices to stay afloat, the number of rural hospitals providing specialized services has dropped significantly. This is particularly the case with quality OB/GYN care — between 1985 and 2000, rural hospitals providing these services dropped by 23%, and that trend shows no sign of slowing down.

It has become notoriously difficult to recruit obstetricians and gynecologists to rural and remote areas. Smaller pay is only one of the barriers facing OB/GYN doctors considering the move — the lifestyle change is another. Getting accustomed to a small-town life isn’t necessarily easy for doctors who have grown up and studied in a suburban or urban environment.

Some hospitals are incentivizing the deal by offering new doctors things like student loan forgiveness, extra vacation time, and shortened work weeks. Mercy Medical Center, which serves the northern Iowa and southern Minnesota areas, is even offering a guaranteed income loan for the first year, which will then be forgiven after three years of service.

Only time will tell whether this trend really takes off. In the meantime, small rural hospitals are doing their best to partner up with clinicians in different specialities so they can continue to offer the right combination of skills to their patients. This works for about two-thirds of pregnancies who only need the kind of support offered in a rural clinic, but the other third require a more advanced care setting with emergency services.

Debate Over Gynecology Tool Sheds Light On Regulation

by

Dr. Lori Gore-GreenDoctors from all over the country are sticking by a gynecological tool even after a warning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about its ability to spread undetected cancer. As reported in a recent article from the Wall Street Journal, the face off between doctors and regulators is showcasing what some might call intransigence on the part of doctors, and others might call overreach on the part of the government. What is certainly clear is that quality gynecological care lies somewhere in the middle.

The device in question is called a laparoscopic power morcellator, and it is used by its proponents to remove benign uterine growths called fibroids. The tool is normally employed during routine hysterectomies to slice and remove the fibroids through small incisions. The issue with the morcellators is that they have the potential to leave tissue behind that can grow and then spread throughout the body, including tissue that has not been identified as malignant.

This potential threat prompted the warning from the FDA and caused many hospitals to stop using the tool, including Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Philadelphia’s Temple University Hospital. Many insurers across the country have stopped covering procedures involving morcellators.

However, there are gynecologists who believe that reports of the threat are unwarranted and continue to use the tool routinely. Doctors like Jeffrey Thurston of Dallas say that the treatments he performs with his patients are between he and his patient, and that regulators are simply interfering. In his practice, he has patients sign a release that states that the risk of spreading undetected sarcoma is somewhere between 1 in 300 and 1 and 1000. He also tells his patients verbally that he does not believe those numbers.

In the tug of war between the FDA and doctors, it can be difficult for patients to know whom to trust. Where one stands on the use of morcellators may have more to do with politics than any insights on patient welfare.

Read the whole story at Wall Street Journal.

Ovulation Causes New Attractions

by

 

Dr. Lori Gore-GreenIn an interesting analysis done by UCLA researchers on studies about how a woman’s mate preference may change throughout the month due to her menstrual cycle. As any living being has a preference or a “type” of individual they find themselves most attracted to, it is always subject to change, but especially during ovulation.

In an article on medicalnewstoday.com, professionals in the medical industry explain that when a woman is ovulating, she tends to be more attracted to the masculine body types and features, dominance, and a particular scent. These sexy men remain attractive; however, they are not necessarily that same woman’s first choice for a lifetime partner. This debate about preference changes has been ongoing since the late 90’s.

One particular study showed that a woman who considers her current male partner as extremely attractive and a sexy man, she is less likely to have a change in preference during ovulation than a woman whose male partner is considered less attractive (even if they have all the best characteristics a man could have). The study seems to make sense, keeping the topic consistent. If a woman’s existing partner is already the masculine, charming man, chances are she just has a stronger sense of attraction during ovulation but to that same man.Symmetrical, masculine facial structure reads more attractive in many cases.

Body scents seem to be one of the strongest preference factors during ovulation. In several studies, women were asked to smell shirts worn by men of all shapes and sizes. The shirts that smelled the best to these women were of symmetrical men. Symmetrical men (and animals) are men with a larger physique, better health, and more distinct sexual body parts. The root of preference change within studies is said to be from women’s ancestry. Symmetrical bodies and faces of these men may be a sign of genetic quality. As a result, the women who preferred these particular, masculine, sexy men are more likely to have children with strong, quality genes that will benefit them in terms of reproduction and survival.

Humans are not the only beings that have a change in preference while going through different phases of fertilization. Just one example is chimpanzees. Female chimps have sex with multiple male chimps during their ovulation period – and they are chimps that they would not have sex with when they’re not ovulating.

This is natural. If a woman is aware that this may happen, it is going to be easier for her to ignore these feelings and thoughts by telling herself that it is because she is ovulating. As living beings should always do, we must let nature take its course and be disciplined and educated enough to know what is happening.