BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is an increasingly common obstetrical procedure, with approximately 20-34% of women undergoing labor induction in the United States annually. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of labor induction in the absence of standard medical indications and to assess possible associations with maternal and infant characteristics and hospital factors. METHODS: We ascertained induction of labor and associated details as part of a medical record validation study of 4541 women with live, singleton births in 2000 in Washington State using medical record, birth certificate, and hospital discharge data. In this analysis, we report findings for the 1473 women (33% of original cohort) whose medical records indicated that their labors were induced. RESULTS: Among women with induced labor, 7.9% had no clinical information providing an indication for the induction, and 6.4% had only "nonstandard" indications recorded. Compared with women delivering in moderate volume hospitals, women who delivered at lower volume (odds ratios [OR] 3.9; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.8-8.6) or higher volume hospitals (OR 4.2; 95% CI 2.4-7.2) had significantly increased risk for undocumented indication of labor. Women who had undocumented indication for induction were at significantly decreased risk of giving birth at a teaching hospital and a public nonfederally owned hospital, and were at greater risk to give birth at a private religious hospital. Factors that remained independently associated with nonstandard indication for induction of labor were primiparas (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.3-4.2); multiparas (OR 4.3; 95% CI 2.5-7.4), pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1-0.4), hospital volume >or=2000 births annually (OR 19.9; 95% CI 6.7-58.6), primary (OR 11.7; 95% CI 4.1-33.6), and tertiary level hospital (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that nearly 15% of inductions either were not clinically indicated according to standard protocols or indications were incompletely documented. At minimum, further studies are needed to explore how best to improve documentation of indications of labor because accurately describing, among other things, the process of labor induction, is a basic benchmark of care.
BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is an increasingly common obstetrical procedure, with approximately 20-34% of women undergoing labor induction in the United States annually. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of labor induction in the absence of standard medical indications and to assess possible associations with maternal and infant characteristics and hospital factors. METHODS: We ascertained induction of labor and associated details as part of a medical record validation study of 4541 women with live, singleton births in 2000 in Washington State using medical record, birth certificate, and hospital discharge data. In this analysis, we report findings for the 1473 women (33% of original cohort) whose medical records indicated that their labors were induced. RESULTS: Among women with induced labor, 7.9% had no clinical information providing an indication for the induction, and 6.4% had only "nonstandard" indications recorded. Compared with women delivering in moderate volume hospitals, women who delivered at lower volume (odds ratios [OR] 3.9; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.8-8.6) or higher volume hospitals (OR 4.2; 95% CI 2.4-7.2) had significantly increased risk for undocumented indication of labor. Women who had undocumented indication for induction were at significantly decreased risk of giving birth at a teaching hospital and a public nonfederally owned hospital, and were at greater risk to give birth at a private religious hospital. Factors that remained independently associated with nonstandard indication for induction of labor were primiparas (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.3-4.2); multiparas (OR 4.3; 95% CI 2.5-7.4), pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1-0.4), hospital volume >or=2000 births annually (OR 19.9; 95% CI 6.7-58.6), primary (OR 11.7; 95% CI 4.1-33.6), and tertiary level hospital (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that nearly 15% of inductions either were not clinically indicated according to standard protocols or indications were incompletely documented. At minimum, further studies are needed to explore how best to improve documentation of indications of labor because accurately describing, among other things, the process of labor induction, is a basic benchmark of care.
Authors: Gláucia Virgínia Guerra; José Guilherme Cecatti; João Paulo Souza; Aníbal Faúndes; Sirlei Siani Morais; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu; Renato Passini; Mary Angela Parpinelli; Guillermo Carroli Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: S Katherine Laughon; Jun Zhang; Jagteshwar Grewal; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Julie Beaver; Uma M Reddy Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Malin Dögl; Pål Romundstad; Line Dahlgaard Berntzen; Oliv Camilla Fremgaarden; Katrine Kirial; Anne Molne Kjøllesdal; Benedicte S Nygaard; Line Robberstad; Thorbjørn Steen; Christian Tappert; Cecilie Fredvik Torkildsen; Magdalena R Vaernesbranden; Alexander Vietheer; Runa Heimstad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sahar Hassan; Katariina Laine; Erik Fosse; Niveen Me Abu-Rmeileh; Hadil Y Ali-Masri; Mohammed Zimmo; Kaled Zimmo; Åse Vikanes; Khaled M Ismail Journal: Int J Womens Health Date: 2019-11-07
Authors: Clifford Silver Tarimo; Soumitra S Bhuyan; Quanman Li; Michael Johnson J Mahande; Jian Wu; Xiaoli Fu Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.006