Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1993 Feb 1;148(3):409–415.

Are physicians changing the way they practise obstetrics?

J Ruderman 1, J C Carroll 1, A J Reid 1, M A Murray 1
PMCID: PMC1490482  PMID: 8439912

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.

Full text

PDF
409

Selected References

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

  1. Beard R. W., Rivers R. P. Fetal asphyxia in labour. Lancet. 1979 Nov 24;2(8152):1117–1119. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(79)92514-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carroll J. C., Reid A. J., Ruderman J., Murray M. A. The influence of the high-risk care environment on the practice of low-risk obstetrics. Fam Med. 1991 Mar-Apr;23(3):184–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Coats P. M., Chan K. K., Wilkins M., Beard R. J. A comparison between midline and mediolateral episiotomies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1980 May;87(5):408–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1980.tb04569.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gillmer M. D., Combe D. Intrapartum fetal monitoring practice in the United Kingdom. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979 Oct;86(10):753–758. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1979.tb10689.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gleicher N. Cesarean section rates in the United States. The short-term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980. JAMA. 1984 Dec 21;252(23):3273–3276. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lomas J., Anderson G. M., Domnick-Pierre K., Vayda E., Enkin M. W., Hannah W. J. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med. 1989 Nov 9;321(19):1306–1311. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198911093211906. [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. Myers S. A., Gleicher N. A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med. 1988 Dec 8;319(23):1511–1516. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198812083192304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nielsen P. V., Stigsby B., Nickelsen C., Nim J. Intra- and inter-observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66(5):421–424. doi: 10.3109/00016348709022046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. O'Driscoll K., Foley M., MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Apr;63(4):485–490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Parer J. T. Roundtable: Part I. The Dublin trial of fetal heart rate monitoring: the final word? Birth. 1986 Jun;13(2):119–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536x.1986.tb01021.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Perkins R. P. Perinatal observations in a high-risk population managed without intrapartum fetal pH studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Jun 1;149(3):327–336. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(84)90233-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Reid A. J., Carroll J. C., Ruderman J., Murray M. A. Differences in intrapartum obstetric care provided to women at low risk by family physicians and obstetricians. CMAJ. 1989 Mar 15;140(6):625–633. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Reynolds J. L., Yudkin P. L. Changes in the management of labour: 1. Length and management of the second stage. CMAJ. 1987 May 15;136(10):1041–1045. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Sleep J., Grant A., Garcia J., Elbourne D., Spencer J., Chalmers I. West Berkshire perineal management trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Sep 8;289(6445):587–590. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6445.587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Thacker S. B., Banta H. D. Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the English language literature, 1860-1980. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1983 Jun;38(6):322–338. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]

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

RESOURCES