Dataset Information

Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients' own obstetricians.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The question "will you be delivering my baby?" is one that pregnant women frequently ask their physicians. We sought to determine whether obstetric outcomes differed between women whose babies were delivered by their own obstetrician (regular-care obstetrician) and those attended by an on-call obstetrician who did not provide antenatal care.

Methods

We performed a cohort study of all live singleton term births between 1991 and 2001 at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montréal. We excluded breech deliveries, elective cesarean sections and deliveries with placenta previa or prolapse of the umbilical cord. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare obstetric outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery and episiotomy) between the regular-care and on-call obstetricians after adjustment for potential confounders.

Results

A total of 28,332 eligible deliveries were attended by 26 obstetricians: 21,779 (76.9%) by the patient's own obstetrician and 6553 (23.1%) by the on-call obstetrician. Compared with women attended by their regular-care obstetrician, those attended by an on-call obstetrician had higher rates of cesarean delivery (11.9% v. 11.4%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, p < 0.01) and of third-or fourth-degree tears (7.9% v. 6.4%, adjusted OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07-1.36, p < 0.01) but lower rates of episiotomy (38.5% v. 42.9%, OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82, p < 0.001). No differences were observed between the groups in the rate of instrumental vaginal delivery. The increase in the overall rate of cesarean delivery among women attended by an on-call obstetrician was due mainly to an increase in cesarean deliveries during the first stage of labour because of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing (2.9% v. 1.7%, adjusted OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.49-2.15, p < 0.001). The time of day of delivery did not modify the observed effects.

Interpretation

The type of attending obstetrician (regular care v. on call) had a minor effect on obstetric outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Abenhaim HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1942095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesInsight into perspectives and values of care providers on episiotomy can be a first step towards reducing variation in its use. We aimed to gain insight into these perspectives and values.SettingMaternity care in the Netherlands.ParticipantsMidwives, obstetricians and obstetric registrars working in primary, secondary or tertiary care, purposively sampled, based on their perceived episiotomy rate and/or region of work.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPerspectives and values of care providers which were explored using semistructured in-depth interviews.ResultsThe following four themes were identified, using the evidence-based practice-model of Satterfield et al as a framework: 'Care providers' vision on childbirth', 'Discrepancy between restrictive perspective and daily practice', 'Clinical expertise versus literature-based practice' and 'Involvement of women in the decision'. Perspectives, values and practices regarding episiotomy were strongly influenced by care providers' underlying visions on childbirth. Although care providers often emphasised the importance of restrictive episiotomy policy, a discrepancy was found between this vision and the large number of varying indications for episiotomy. Although on one hand care providers cited evidence to support their practice, on the other hand, many based their decision-making to a larger extent on clinical experience. Although most care providers considered women's autonomy to be important, at the moment of deciding on episiotomy, the involvement of women in the decision was perceived as minimal, and real informed consent generally did not take place, neither during labour, nor prenatally. Many care providers belittled episiotomy in their language.ConclusionsCare providers' underlying vision on episiotomy and childbirth was an important contributor to the large variations in episiotomy usage. Their clinical expertise was a more important component in decision-making on episiotomy than the literature. Women were minimally involved in the decision for performing episiotomy. More research is required to achieve consensus on indications for episiotomy.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate how often midwives, specialty trainees and doctors specialised in obstetrics and gynaecology are attending to specific obstetric emergencies or high-risk deliveries (obstetric events).DesignA national cross-sectional study.SettingAll hospital labour wards in Denmark.ParticipantsMidwives (n=1303), specialty trainees (n=179) and doctors specialised in obstetrics and gynaecology (n=343) working in hospital labour wards (n=21) in Denmark in 2018.MethodsCategories of obstetric events comprised of Apgar score <7/5 min, eclampsia, emergency caesarean sections, severe postpartum haemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, umbilical cord prolapse, vaginal breech deliveries, vaginal twin deliveries and vacuum extraction. Data on number of healthcare professionals were obtained through the Danish maternity wards, the Danish Health Authority and the Danish Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. We calculated the time interval between attending each obstetric event by dividing the number of events occurred with the number of healthcare professionals.Outcome measuresThe time interval between attending a specific obstetric event.ResultsThe average time between experiencing obstetric events ranged from days to years. Emergency caesarean sections, which occur relatively frequent, were attended on average every other month by midwives, every 9 days for specialty trainees and every 17 days by specialist doctors. On average, rare events like eclampsia were experienced by midwives only every 42 years, every 6 years by specialty trainees and every 11 years by specialist doctors.ConclusionsSome obstetric events occur extremely rarely, hindering the ability to obtain and maintain the clinical skills to manage them through clinical practice alone. By assessing the frequency of a healthcare professionals attending an obstetric emergency, our study contributes to assessing the need for supplementary educational initiatives and interventions to learn and maintain clinical skills.

Project description:ImportanceDespite much higher health care expenditure than comparable countries, striking racial and ethnic disparities exist in obstetric outcomes in the United States. A multifaceted exploration of the factors influencing these disparities, including the legacy of structural racism, is important to improve health outcomes for all.ObjectiveTo characterize the association of the historic racially discriminatory home loan practice of redlining with disparities in modern obstetric outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study of a 9-county birth certificate database in the Finger Lakes region of New York state from 2005 to 2018, modern obstetric outcomes were matched with regions classified by the federal government for mortgage loan servicing based on racially discriminatory criteria from the 1940 Home Owners' Loan Corporation map (HOLC; also known as the redline map). Patients with a live birth recorded in the data system with a recorded home zip code within the historic HOLC categories were included. Data were analyzed from July to December 2019.ExposureRegions previously categorized by historic, racially discriminatory criteria.Main outcomes and measuresEach HOLC area was analyzed for the primary outcome of preterm birth and secondary outcomes of obstetric and medical complications, with logistic regression to address regional and patient-level covariates.ResultsFrom 2005 until 2018, there were 64 804 live births within the 15 zip codes overlaying historic HOLC regions. Prevalence of preterm birth increased with decreasing HOLC categories, from the lowest overall preterm birth rate of 217 of 2873 births (7.55%) in the zip code historically defined as "Best" or "Still Desirable" and the highest overall preterm birth rate of 427 of 3449 births (12.38%) in the zip code historically defined as "Hazardous." These associations with preterm birth remained significant in logistic regression controlling for poverty levels and educational attainment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.97) and parental race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.25-1.53).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, the linkage of historic and modern community data sets with an obstetric data set offered the opportunity to characterize modern obstetric disparities associated with a system of historic inequity. The persistence of these findings after correcting for contemporary community socioeconomic characteristics suggest potential influences of a system of profound structural inequity that ripple forward in time, with impacts that extend beyond measurable socioeconomic inequity.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the incidence of inherited thrombophilias in patients with adverse obstetric outcomes and to compare detection rates of thrombophilias between standard blood tests and a novel genetic test. METHODS:This is a case-control prospective study performed in Hospital Sant Joan de Déu in Barcelona, Spain. Cases had a history of intrauterine growth restriction requiring delivery before 34 weeks gestation, placental abruption before 34 weeks gestation, or severe preeclampsia. Controls had at least two normal, spontaneously conceived pregnancies at term, without complications or no underlying medical disease. At least 3 months after delivery, all case and control women underwent blood collection for standard blood tests for thrombophilias and saliva collection for the genetic test, which enables the diagnosis of 12 hereditary thrombophilias by analyzing genetic variants affecting different points of the blood coagulation cascade. RESULTS:The study included 33 cases and 41 controls. There were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls in the standard blood tests for thrombophilias in plasma or the TiC test for genetic variables. One clinical-genetic model was generated using variables with the lowest P values: ABO, body mass index, C_rs5985, C_rs6025, and protein S. This model exhibited good prediction capacity, with an area under the curve of almost 0.7 (P <0.05), sensitivity of almost 67%, and specificity of 70%. CONCLUSION:Although some association may exist between hypercoagulability and pregnancy outcomes, no significant direct correlation was observed between adverse obstetric outcomes and inherited thrombophilias when analyzed using either standard blood tests or the genetic test. Future studies with a larger sample size are required to create a clinical-genetic model that better discriminates women with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes and an increased risk of poor outcomes in subsequent pregnancies.