| Literature DB >> 27487231 |
Joanna H Tu1, Jochen Profit2, Kathryn Melsop3, Taylor Brown2, Alexis Davis2, Elliot Main3, Henry C Lee2.
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to assess utilization of specialist coverage and checklists in perinatal settings and to examine utilization by birth asphyxia rates. Design This is a survey study of California maternity hospitals concerning checklist use to prepare for delivery room resuscitation and 24-hour in-house specialist coverage (pediatrician/neonatologist, obstetrician, and obstetric anesthesiologist) and results linked to hospital birth asphyxia rates (preterm and low weight births were excluded). Results Of 253 maternity hospitals, 138 responded (55%); 59 (43%) indicated checklist use, and in-house specialist coverage ranged from 38% (pediatrician/neonatologist) to 54% (anesthesiology). In-house coverage was more common in urban versus rural hospitals for all specialties (p < 0.0001), but checklist use was not significantly different (p = 0.88). Higher birth volume hospitals had more specialist coverage (p < 0.0001), whereas checklist use did not differ (p = 0.3). In-house obstetric coverage was associated with lower asphyxia rates (odds ratio: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20, 0.58) in a regression model accounting for other providers. Checklist use was not associated with birth asphyxia (odds ratio: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.68). Conclusion Higher birth volume and urban hospitals demonstrated greater in-house specialist coverage, but checklist use was similar across all hospitals. Current data suggest that in-house obstetric coverage has greater impact on asphyxia than other specialist coverage or checklist use. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27487231 DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1586505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Perinatol ISSN: 0735-1631 Impact factor: 1.862