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
  • [21] Factors That Influence the Practice of Elective Induction of Labor What Does the Evidence Tell Us?
    Moore, Jennifer
    Low, Lisa Kane
    JOURNAL OF PERINATAL & NEONATAL NURSING, 2012, 26 (03) : 242 - 250
  • [22] Timing of induction of labor
    Bacak, Stephen J.
    Olson-Chen, Courtney
    Pressman, Eva
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2015, 39 (06) : 450 - 458
  • [23] Failed induction of labor
    Schoen, Corina
    Navathe, Reshama
    SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2015, 39 (06) : 483 - 487
  • [24] The relative impact of labor induction versus improved labor management: Before and after the ARRIVE (a randomized trial of induction vs. expectant management) trial
    Fineberg, Annette E.
    Harley, Kim
    Lahiff, Maureen
    Main, Elliott K.
    BIRTH-ISSUES IN PERINATAL CARE, 2024, 51 (04): : 719 - 727
  • [25] The influence of hospital type on induction of labor and mode of delivery
    Snyder, Candice C.
    Wolfe, Katherine B.
    Loftin, Ryan W.
    Tabbah, Sammy
    Lewis, David F.
    Defranco, Emily A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 205 (04) : 346.e1 - 346.e4
  • [26] Maternal obesity and induction of labor
    O'Dwyer, Vicky
    O'Kelly, Sarah
    Monaghan, Bernadette
    Rowan, Ann
    Farah, Nadine
    Turner, Michael J.
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2013, 92 (12) : 1414 - 1418
  • [27] Restrictive use of labor induction in absence of proven benefit
    Burger, Renee J.
    Ravelli, Anita C. J.
    Gordijn, Sanne J.
    Ganzevoort, Wessel
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2023, 102 (08) : 1138 - 1139
  • [28] Prediction models for determining the success of labor induction: A systematic review
    Meier, Kennedy
    Parrish, Jacqueline
    D'Souza, Rohan
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2019, 98 (09) : 1100 - 1112
  • [29] Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks among nulliparous women: The impact on maternal and neonatal risk
    Sinkey, Rachel G.
    Lacevic, Jasmin
    Reljic, Tea
    Hozo, Iztok
    Gibson, Kelly S.
    Odibo, Anthony O.
    Djulbegovic, Benjamin
    Lockwood, Charles J.
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (04):
  • [30] Simplified Bishop score including parity predicts successful induction of labor
    Ivars, Joanna
    Garabedian, Charles
    Devos, Patrick
    Therby, Denis
    Carlier, Sabine
    Deruelle, Philippe
    Subtil, Damien
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2016, 203 : 309 - 314