Clinical Impact of a Restrictive Labor Induction Approval Process

被引:1
|
作者
Tolcher, Mary Catherine [1 ]
Hokenstad, Alexis N. [2 ]
Weaver, Amy L. [3 ]
McGree, Michaela E. [3 ]
Rose, Carl H. [2 ]
Famuyide, Abimbola O. [2 ]
Brost, Brian C. [4 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Div Biomed Stat & Informat, Dept Hlth Sci Res, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Wake Forest Sch Med, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Winston Salem, NC USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Induction of labor; Elective delivery; Nonmedically; indicated delivery; Cesarean delivery; INDICATED LATE-PRETERM; EXPECTANT MANAGEMENT; ELECTIVE INDUCTION; NULLIPAROUS WOMEN; RESPIRATORY MORBIDITY; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; CESAREAN DELIVERY; TERM; GUIDELINES; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1159/000491084
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a restrictive labor induction approval process on induction and primary cesarean delivery rates. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care academic center from 2006 through 2012. The cohort of deliveries before (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) the process included term, singleton pregnancies with no contraindication to vaginal delivery. The primary outcome was induction of labor rates, subgrouped on the basis of whether it was medically or nonmedically indicated. Secondary outcomes included the primary cesarean rate and other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: Of 13,753 deliveries, 6,746 met study inclusion criteria. There was a significant decrease in induction rates comparing the pre- and post-intervention periods (21.0 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.01). Nonmedically indicated induction rates also decreased significantly (2.9 vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001). No difference was observed in medically indicated induction (18.1 vs. 17.9%, p = 0.84), the primary cesarean rate (14.4 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.12), or any of the measured neonatal outcomes (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Implementation of a labor induction approval process was associated with a significant reduction in overall and nonindicated induction rates but did not affect the primary cesarean rate or neonatal outcomes. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:166 / 173
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Elective Induction of Labor What is the Impact?
    Little, Sarah E.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2017, 44 (04) : 601 - +
  • [2] The role of labor induction in modern obstetrics
    Grobman, William A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2024, 230 (03) : S662 - S668
  • [3] Induction of Labor and Cesarean: What is the True Relationship?
    Little, Sarah E.
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 58 (02) : 269 - 281
  • [4] Induction of Labor: Update and Review
    Bonsack, Carrie F.
    Lathrop, Anthony
    Blackburn, Mary
    JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2014, 59 (06) : 606 - 615
  • [5] American College of Nurse-Midwives Clinical Bulletin Number 18: Induction of Labor
    Carlson, Nicole Smith
    Amore, Alexis Dunn
    Ellis, Jessica Ann
    Page, Katie
    Schafer, Robyn
    JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2022, 67 (01) : 140 - 149
  • [6] Induction of Labor in the United States: A Critical Appraisal of Appropriateness and Reducibility
    Chauhan, Suneet P.
    Ananth, Cande V.
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2012, 36 (05) : 336 - 343
  • [7] Induction of labor: does indication matter?
    Gabbay-Benziv, Rinat
    Hadar, Eran
    Ashwal, Eran
    Chen, Rony
    Wiznitzer, Arnon
    Hiersch, Liran
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2016, 294 (06) : 1195 - 1201
  • [8] Labor Induction Process Improvement: A Patient Quality-of-Care Initiative
    Fisch, John M.
    English, Dennis
    Pedaline, Susan
    Brooks, Kerri
    Simhan, Hyagriv N.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 113 (04) : 797 - 803
  • [9] Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor: a population-based study
    Zenzmaier, Christoph
    Leitner, Hermann
    Brezinka, Christoph
    Oberaigner, Willi
    Koenig-Bachmann, Martina
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2017, 295 (05) : 1175 - 1183
  • [10] Measures of success: Prediction of successful labor induction
    Gibson, Kelly S.
    Waters, Thaddeus P.
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2015, 39 (06) : 475 - 482