Literature DB >> 16398776

Does size matter? A population-based study of birth in lower volume maternity hospitals for low risk women.

Sally K Tracy1, Elizabeth Sullivan, Hannah Dahlen, Deborah Black, Yueping Alex Wang, Mark B Tracy.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between volume of hospital births per annum and birth outcome for low risk women.
DESIGN: Population-based study using the National Perinatal Data Collection (NPDC).
SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Of 750,491 women who gave birth during 1999-2001, there were 331,147 (47.14%) medically 'low risk' including 132,696 (40.07%) primiparae and 198,451 (59.93%) multiparae.
METHODS: The frequency of each birth and infant outcome was described according to the size of the hospital where birth took place. We investigated whether unit size (defined by volume) was an independent risk factor for each outcome factor using public hospitals with greater than 2000 births per annum as a reference point. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of intervention at birth and neonatal mortality for low risk women in relation to hospitals with <100, 100-500, 501-1000, 1001-2000 and >2001 births per annum.
RESULTS: Neonatal death was less likely in hospitals with less than 2000 births per annum regardless of parity. For multiparous low risk women in hospitals of 100 and 500 births per annum compared with hospitals of >2000 births per annum the adjusted odds of neonatal mortality [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.36; 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.93]. For low risk primiparous women in hospitals with less than 100 births per annum, there were lower rates of induction of labour (AOR 0.62; 99% CI 0.54-0.73); intrathecal analgesia/anaesthesia (AOR 0.34; 99% CI 0.28-0.42); instrumental birth (AOR 0.80; 99% CI 0.69-0.93); caesarean section after labour (AOR 0.59; 99% CI 0.49-0.72) and admission to a neonatal unit (AOR 0.15; 99% CI 0.10-0.22) and for low risk multiparous women in hospitals with less than 100 births per annum: induction (AOR 0.69; 99% CI 0.62-0.76); intrathecal analgesia/anaesthesia (AOR 0.32; 99% CI 0.29-0.36); instrumental birth (AOR 0.52; 99% CI 0.41-0.67); caesarean section after labour (AOR 0.41; 99% CI 0.33-0.52); and admission to a neonatal unit (AOR 0.09; 99% CI 0.07-0.12).
CONCLUSIONS: In Australia, lower hospital volume is not associated with adverse outcomes for low risk women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16398776     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00794.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  20 in total

1.  The impact of hospital obstetric volume on maternal outcomes in term, non-low-birthweight pregnancies.

Authors:  Jonathan M Snowden; Yvonne W Cheng; Cathy L Emeis; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Regionalization and local hospital closure in Norwegian maternity care--the effect on neonatal and infant mortality.

Authors:  Jostein Grytten; Lars Monkerud; Irene Skau; Rune Sørensen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Effect of hospital setting and volume on clinical outcomes in women with gestational and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  W K Nicholson; F Witter; N R Powe
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  The association between hospital obstetric volume and perinatal outcomes in California.

Authors:  Jonathan M Snowden; Yvonne W Cheng; Caitlin P Kontgis; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Mode of delivery and level of neonatal care in Lombardy: a descriptive analysis according to volume of care.

Authors:  Fabio Parazzini; Sonia Cipriani; Giuseppe Bulfoni; Camilla Bulfoni; Roberto Bellù; Rinaldo Zanini; Fabio Mosca
Journal:  Ital J Pediatr       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 2.638

6.  Birthplace in New South Wales, Australia: an analysis of perinatal outcomes using routinely collected data.

Authors:  Caroline S E Homer; Charlene Thornton; Vanessa L Scarf; David A Ellwood; Jeremy J N Oats; Maralyn J Foureur; David Sibbritt; Helen L McLachlan; Della A Forster; Hannah G Dahlen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Cultures of risk and their influence on birth in rural British Columbia.

Authors:  Jude Kornelsen; Stefan Grzybowski
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  Obstetric interventions in two groups of hospitals in Catalonia: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Ramón Escuriet; María Pueyo; Herminia Biescas; Cristina Colls; Isabel Espiga; Joanna White; Xavi Espada; Josep Fusté; Vicente Ortún
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Service configuration, unit characteristics and variation in intervention rates in a national sample of obstetric units in England: an exploratory analysis.

Authors:  Rachel E Rowe; John Townend; Peter Brocklehurst; Marian Knight; Alison Macfarlane; Christine McCourt; Mary Newburn; Maggie Redshaw; Jane Sandall; Louise Silverton; Jennifer Hollowell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Availability and access in modern obstetric care: a retrospective population-based study.

Authors:  H M Engjom; N-H Morken; O F Norheim; K Klungsøyr
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 6.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.