Literature DB >> 8563590

Management of labour in an isolated rural maternity hospital.

A G Baird1, D Jewell, J J Walker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of a maternity unit run by general practitioners and midwives, describing the outcome of labour in an unselected group of women and quantifying the contribution made by general practitioners.
DESIGN: Retrospective population based review of obstetric patients who had access to an isolated rural maternity unit.
SETTING: Rural area 120 km from a consultant maternity unit.
SUBJECTS: 997 consecutive women delivered between January 1987 and May 1991. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mode of delivery and complications by place of booking and place of delivery; need for medical intervention and transfer.
RESULTS: 530 women (53%) were booked for delivery in the rural unit; this group had a caesarean section rate of 3.8% and an unplanned transfer rate of 12.8% to the consultant unit in labour. Of the 462 who delivered in the low risk unit, 25 (5%) required a forceps delivery; postnatal complications requiring emergency medical support occurred in a further 33 (7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Risk characterisation is possible, but medical support from general practitioners and obstetricians is required in almost a third of women at low risk for complications of delivery. Results of this study support the team approach to obstetric management but not the move towards isolated units without organised medical support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8563590      PMCID: PMC2350026          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7025.223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  13 in total

1.  Community obstetric care in West Berkshire.

Authors:  P Street; M J Gannon; E M Holt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-03-23

2.  Are isolated maternity units run by general practitioners dangerous?

Authors:  G Young
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-03-21

3.  Audit of 26 years of obstetrics in general practice.

Authors:  G N Marsh; D M Channing
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-04-22

4.  Comparison of outcome of low-risk labour in an isolated general practice maternity unit and a specialist maternity hospital.

Authors:  S W Lowe; W House; T Garrett
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1987-11

5.  General practitioner obstetrics: does risk prediction work?

Authors:  J L Reynolds; P L Yudkin; M J Bull
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1988-07

6.  Is obstetrics safe in small hospitals? Evidence from New Zealand's regionalised perinatal system.

Authors:  R A Rosenblatt; J Reinken; P Shoemack
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-08-24       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  J MacVicar; G Dobbie; L Owen-Johnstone; C Jagger; M Hopkins; J Kennedy
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1993-04

8.  Is antenatal care apportioned according to obstetric risk? The Scottish antenatal care study.

Authors:  J Tucker; C D Florey; P Howie; G McIlwaine; M Hall
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1994-03

9.  Contribution of isolated general practitioner maternity units.

Authors:  A J Cavenagh; K M Phillips; B Sheridan; E M Williams
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-05-12

10.  How safe is general practitioner obstetrics?

Authors:  G W Taylor; W Edgar; B A Taylor; D G Neal
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1980-12-13       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  7 in total

1.  Predictors of the provision of intrapartum care by general practitioners: five-year cohort study.

Authors:  L F Smith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  GMSC's advice on intrapartum care. Committee is out of touch with needs of profession.

Authors:  P D Thomas
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-08-03

3.  Prospective regional study of planned home births. Home Birth Study Steering Group.

Authors:  J Davies; E Hey; W Reid; G Young
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-23

4.  GMSC's advice on intrapartum care is unhelpful.

Authors:  J Bradbrook; M Carmi; J Danby; R Fawdry; J Fletcher; D Gill; A Jackson-Baker; D Jewell; M McKenzie; A Noble; R Porter; B Seaman; L Smith; G Young
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-04-06

Review 5.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of valued obstetric and gynecologic (OB/GYN) procedures in resource-poor areas.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ellen Blears; Nguyen K Pham; Valerie P Bauer
Journal:  Surg Open Sci       Date:  2020-04-12

6.  Freestanding midwifery unit versus obstetric unit: a matched cohort study of outcomes in low-risk women.

Authors:  Charlotte Overgaard; Anna Margrethe Møller; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Lisbeth B Knudsen; Jane Sandall
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review.

Authors:  Bahareh Goodarzi; Annika Walker; Lianne Holten; Linda Schoonmade; Pim Teunissen; François Schellevis; Ank de Jonge
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.