Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1989 Mar 15;140(6):625–633.

Differences in intrapartum obstetric care provided to women at low risk by family physicians and obstetricians.

A J Reid 1, J C Carroll 1, J Ruderman 1, M A Murray 1
PMCID: PMC1268752  PMID: 2920336

Abstract

To determine differences in practice style and to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes, we reviewed the hospital charts of 1115 women admitted by family physicians and 1250 women admitted by obstetricians who gave birth at one of three teaching hospitals in Toronto between April 1985 and March 1986. All the women in the two groups were categorized retrospectively as being at low risk at the onset of labour on the basis of their prenatal records and their admission histories and physical examination results. There were higher proportions of younger women and women of lower socioeconomic status in the family physician group than in the obstetrician group (p less than 0.001). The rates of interventions, including artificial rupture of the membranes, induction, augmentation, low forceps plus vacuum extraction, episiotomy and epidural anesthesia, were all higher in the obstetrician group. The mean birth weight and the cesarean section rate were the same in the two groups. Differences in labour and delivery outcomes between the two groups, including a higher rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery for the family physicians, reflected a more "expectant" practice style by family doctors. However, there were no significant differences in the rates of maternal or neonatal complications. A practice style characterized by a higher rate of interventions was not associated with improved maternal or newborn outcome in this low-risk setting.

Full text

PDF
625

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brody H., Thompson J. R. The maximin strategy in modern obstetrics. J Fam Pract. 1981 Jun;12(6):977–986. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Caetano D. F. The relationship of medical specialization (obstetricians and general practitioners) to complications in pregnancy and delivery, birth injury, and malformation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975 Oct 1;123(3):221–227. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(75)90189-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ely J. W., Ueland K., Gordon M. J. An audit of obstetric care in a university family medicine department and an obstetrics-gynecology department. J Fam Pract. 1976 Aug;3(4):397–401. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Franks P., Eisinger S. Adverse perinatal outcomes: is physician specialty a risk factor? J Fam Pract. 1987 Feb;24(2):152–156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Klein M. "Obstetrics is too important to be left to the obstetricians". Fam Med. 1987 May-Jun;19(3):167–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Klein M., Lloyd I., Redman C., Bull M., Turnbull A. C. A comparison of low-risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care: shared-care (consultant) and integrated general practice unit. II. Labour and delivery management and neonatal outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983 Feb;90(2):123–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1983.tb08895.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mengel M. B., Phillips W. R. The quality of obstetric care in family practice: are family physicians as safe as obstetricians? J Fam Pract. 1987 Feb;24(2):159–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Phillips W. R., Rice G. A., Layton R. H. Audit of obstetrical care and outcome in family medicine, obstetrics, and general practice. J Fam Pract. 1978 Jun;6(6):1209–1216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Phillips W. R., Sevens G. S. Obstetrics in family practice: competence, continuity, and caring. J Fam Pract. 1985 Jun;20(6):595–596. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Reynolds J. L., Yudkin P. L. Changes in the management of labour: 2. Perineal management. CMAJ. 1987 May 15;136(10):1045–1049. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rosenberg E. E., Klein M. Is maternity care different in family practice? A pilot matched pair study. J Fam Pract. 1987 Sep;25(3):237–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rosenblatt R. A., Reinken J., Shoemack P. Is obstetrics safe in small hospitals? Evidence from New Zealand's regionalised perinatal system. Lancet. 1985 Aug 24;2(8452):429–432. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92747-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Scherger J. E. The family physician delivering babies: an endangered species. Fam Med. 1987 Mar-Apr;19(2):95–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Taylor G. W., Edgar W., Taylor B. A., Neal D. G. How safe is general practitioner obstetrics? Lancet. 1980 Dec 13;2(8207):1287–1289. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(80)92348-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wall E. M. Assessing obstetric risk. A review of obstetric risk-scoring systems. J Fam Pract. 1988 Aug;27(2):153–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wanderer M. J., Suyehira J. G. Obstetrical care in a prepaid cooperative: a comparison between family practice residents, family physicians, and obstetricians. J Fam Pract. 1980 Oct;11(4):601–606. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES