BACKGROUND: The gap between publishing and implementing guidelines differs based on practice setting, including hospital geography and teaching status. On March 31, 2006, a Practice Bulletin published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended against the routine use of episiotomy and urged clinicians to make judicious decisions to restrict the use of the procedure. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated changes in trends of episiotomy use before and after the ACOG Practice Guideline was issued in 2006, focusing on differences by hospital geographic location (rural/urban) and teaching status. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)-a 20% sample of US hospitals-5,779,781 hospital-based births from 2002 to 2011 (weighted N = 28,067,939) were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to measure odds of episiotomy and trends in episiotomy use in vaginal deliveries. RESULTS: The overall episiotomy rate decreased from 20.3% in 2002 to 9.4% in 2011. Across all settings, a comparatively larger decline in episiotomy rates preceded the issuance of the ACOG Practice Guideline (34.0% decline), rather than following it (23.9% decline). The episiotomy rate discrepancies between rural, urban teaching, and urban nonteaching hospitals remained steady prior to the guideline's release; however, differences between urban nonteaching and urban teaching hospitals narrowed between 2007 and 2011 after the guideline was issued. CONCLUSION: Teaching status was a strong predictor of odds of episiotomy, with urban nonteaching hospitals having the highest rates of noncompliance with evidence-based practice. Issuance of clinical guidelines precipitated a narrowing of this discrepancy.
BACKGROUND: The gap between publishing and implementing guidelines differs based on practice setting, including hospital geography and teaching status. On March 31, 2006, a Practice Bulletin published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended against the routine use of episiotomy and urged clinicians to make judicious decisions to restrict the use of the procedure. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated changes in trends of episiotomy use before and after the ACOG Practice Guideline was issued in 2006, focusing on differences by hospital geographic location (rural/urban) and teaching status. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)-a 20% sample of US hospitals-5,779,781 hospital-based births from 2002 to 2011 (weighted N = 28,067,939) were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to measure odds of episiotomy and trends in episiotomy use in vaginal deliveries. RESULTS: The overall episiotomy rate decreased from 20.3% in 2002 to 9.4% in 2011. Across all settings, a comparatively larger decline in episiotomy rates preceded the issuance of the ACOG Practice Guideline (34.0% decline), rather than following it (23.9% decline). The episiotomy rate discrepancies between rural, urban teaching, and urban nonteaching hospitals remained steady prior to the guideline's release; however, differences between urban nonteaching and urban teaching hospitals narrowed between 2007 and 2011 after the guideline was issued. CONCLUSION: Teaching status was a strong predictor of odds of episiotomy, with urban nonteaching hospitals having the highest rates of noncompliance with evidence-based practice. Issuance of clinical guidelines precipitated a narrowing of this discrepancy.
Authors: Hadil Y Ali-Masri; Sahar J Hassan; Kaled M Zimmo; Mohammed W Zimmo; Khaled M K Ismail; Erik Fosse; Hasan Alsalman; Åse Vikanes; Katariina Laine Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2018-10-29
Authors: Laura Barrie Smith; Nihar R Desai; Bryan Dowd; Alexander Everhart; Jeph Herrin; Lucas Higuera; Molly Moore Jeffery; Anupam B Jena; Joseph S Ross; Nilay D Shah; Pinar Karaca-Mandic Journal: Int J Health Econ Manag Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Jonathan M Snowden; Sarah S Osmundson; Menolly Kaufman; Cori Blauer Peterson; Katy Backes Kozhimannil Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jimmy J Chan; Carl M Cirino; Hsin-Hui Huang; Jashvant Poeran; Madhu Mazumdar; Bradford O Parsons; Shawn G Anthony; Leesa M Galatz; Paul J Cagle Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Anna Seijmonsbergen-Schermers; Suzanne Thompson; Esther Feijen-de Jong; Marrit Smit; Marianne Prins; Thomas van den Akker; Ank de Jonge Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rasha Khatib; Kara Nitti; Marc McDowell; Rick Szymialis; Chris Blair; Nicole Glowacki; William Rhoades Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 2.300