Literature DB >> 8439912

Are physicians changing the way they practise obstetrics?

J Ruderman1, J C Carroll, A J Reid, M A Murray.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in obstetric interventions in women at low risk over approximately 3 years. It was postulated that there would be a general reduction in most intervention rates.
DESIGN: Retrospective review of hospital records.
SETTING: Three downtown hospitals of the University of Toronto, in which academic and nonacademic family physicians and obstetricians practised. PATIENTS: A total of 2365 women in phase 1 (April 1985 to March 1986) and 1277 in phase 2 (May to September 1988) met the inclusion criteria for grade A (pregnancy at no predictable risk) of the Ontario Antenatal Record at the time of admission to hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of artificial rupture of the membranes, induction, augmentation, epidural anesthesia, continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), instrumental delivery, episiotomy and cesarean section.
RESULTS: The family physicians and the obstetricians had significant decreases (p < 0.01) over time in the rates of episiotomy, especially mediolateral, and low forceps delivery. The rate of epidural anesthesia decreased significantly in the obstetrician group. The rates of artificial rupture of the membranes, induction and continuous EFM increased in the two physician groups; the increased rate of EFM was significant in the obstetrician group (p < 0.01). There was no significant change in the rates of augmentation, midforceps delivery, vacuum extraction or cesarean section. All of the trends were found to hold when the intervention rates were analysed according to the women's parity.
CONCLUSIONS: Some of the findings reflect recommendations and trends reported in the literature, whereas others are not supported by clear medical evidence. The unpredictable nature of the trends suggests that further study is warranted of the reasons for obstetric trends and for the changes in physicians' practice patterns.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8439912      PMCID: PMC1490482     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  18 in total

Review 1.  Assessing obstetric risk. A review of obstetric risk-scoring systems.

Authors:  E M Wall
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 0.493

2.  Roundtable: Part I. The Dublin trial of fetal heart rate monitoring: the final word?

Authors:  J T Parer
Journal:  Birth       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 3.689

3.  Changes in the management of labour: 1. Length and management of the second stage.

Authors:  J L Reynolds; P L Yudkin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1987-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia.

Authors:  K O'Driscoll; M Foley; D MacDonald
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Cesarean section rates in the United States. The short-term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980.

Authors:  N Gleicher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1984-12-21       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the English language literature, 1860-1980.

Authors:  S B Thacker; H D Banta
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 2.347

7.  West Berkshire perineal management trial.

Authors:  J Sleep; A Grant; J Garcia; D Elbourne; J Spencer; I Chalmers
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-09-08

8.  Is maternity care different in family practice? A pilot matched pair study.

Authors:  E E Rosenberg; M Klein
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 0.493

9.  The quality of obstetric care in family practice: are family physicians as safe as obstetricians?

Authors:  M B Mengel; W R Phillips
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 0.493

10.  Intra- and inter-observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms.

Authors:  P V Nielsen; B Stigsby; C Nickelsen; J Nim
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.636

View more
  9 in total

1.  Does delivery volume of family physicians predict maternal and newborn outcome?

Authors:  Michael C Klein; Andrea Spence; Janusz Kaczorowski; Ann Kelly; Stefan Grzybowski
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-05-14       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Are rural general practitioner--obstetricians performing too many prenatal ultrasound examinations? Evidence from western Labrador.

Authors:  E Thompson; D Freake; G Worrall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-02-10       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Young family physicians support hospital-based activities.

Authors:  R Freeman; V Rachlis; E Franssen
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Pain relief during childbirth.

Authors:  K G Smedstad
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1994-06-01       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Obstetrical anaesthesia in Ontario.

Authors:  K G Smedstad
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.063

6.  Obstetrical anaesthesia in Ontario.

Authors:  J Oyston
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.063

7.  Innovative low-risk maternity clinic. Family physicians provide care in Calgary.

Authors:  C A Lane; S M Malm
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  Family medicine in a tertiary care hospital. Obstetrical outcomes and interventions.

Authors:  D Gaspar; J Jordan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.275

9.  Family practice obstetrics in a community hospital.

Authors:  N A Radomsky
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.275

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.