Search

Objective The aim of the study is to determine the relationship between a hospital's provision of subspecialty neonatal and maternal care. Specifically, we sought to understand where women with high-risk maternal conditions received intrapartum care and estimate the potential transfer burden for those with maternal high-risk conditions delivering at hospitals without subspecialty maternal care. Study Design This is a descriptive study using data from 2015 State Inpatient Databases and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Characteristics were compared between hospitals based on the concordance of their maternal and neonatal care. The incidences of high-risk maternal conditions (pre-eclampsia with severe features, placenta previa with prior cesarean delivery, cardiac disease, pulmonary edema, and acute liver failure) were compared. To determine the potential referral burden, the percent of women with high-risk conditions delivering at a hospital without subspecialty maternal care but delivering in a county with a hospital with subspecialty maternal care was calculated. Results The analysis included 486,398 women who delivered at 544 hospitals, of which 104 (19%) and 182 (33%) had subspecialty maternal and neonatal care, respectively. Ninety-eight hospitals provided both subspecialty maternal and neonatal care; however, 84 hospitals provided only subspecialty neonatal care but no subspecialty maternal care. Among high-risk maternal conditions examined, approximately 65% of women delivered at a hospital with subspecialty maternal care. Of the remainder who delivered at a hospital without subspecialty maternal care, one-third were in a county where subspecialty care was present. For women with high-risk conditions who delivered in a county without subspecialty maternal care, the median distance to the closest county with subspecialty care was 52.8 miles (IQR: 34.3–87.7 miles). Conclusion Approximately 50% of hospitals with subspecialty neonatal care do not provide subspecialty maternal care. This discordance may present a challenge when both high-risk maternal and neonatal conditions are present. Key Points High-risk women who deliver at hospitals without subspecialty care are in more rural areas. Approximately 50% of hospitals with subspecialty neonatal care do not provide subspecialty maternal care. This discordance may present a challenge when both high-risk maternal and neonatal conditions are present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Standardized labor induction protocols utilizing evidence-based active management practices are associated with improved obstetric outcomes. However, these protocols are complex and include multiple components. We aimed to identify which of the individual components of an evidence-based labor induction protocol are most associated with reduced rates of cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. Study Design: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing time to delivery among four labor induction methods. All patients enrolled in the trial had their labor managed with a multidisciplinary-developed, evidence-based standardized labor induction protocol. For each patient’s induction, we assessed adherence to seven components of the protocol. Primary outcomes included cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. Bivariate analyses assessed the association of each protocol component with each outcome. Multivariable logistic regression determined independent predictors of each outcome. Results: The 491 patients enrolled in the randomized trial were included in this analysis. For cesarean delivery, while adherence to four of the seven protocol components was associated with the outcome in bivariate analyses, only adherence to “cervical exams should be performed every 1–2 h in active labor” was associated with reduced cesarean rates when controlling for age, body mass index, and parity. For maternal morbidity, while adherence to “if misoprostol is utilized, it should not be continued beyond 6 doses or 24 h of use” was associated in bivariate analysis, it was no longer associated with the outcome in multivariable analysis. Finally, “cervical exams should be performed every 1–2 h in active labor” and “cervical exams should be performed every 2–4 h in latent labor” were associated with reduced neonatal morbidity both in bivariate analyses as well as when controlling for age, body mass index, and parity. Conclusions: Within a standardized labor induction protocol, adherence to cervical exams every 1–2 h in active labor was associated with reduced cesarean rate, and adherence to cervical exams every 2–4 h in latent labor, as well as every 1–2 h in active labor is associated with reduced neonatal morbidity. Regular cervical examination during labor induction likely allows for intervention when cervical change is not made. This data warrants further investigation into the optimal frequency of cervical exams during labor induction. Furthermore, an understanding of which components of a complex, evidence-based labor induction protocol are most effective may be helpful for streamlining and education around this protocol as implementation occurs across diverse sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study was conducted to investigate whether obstetrical residency programs can be evaluated by the level of care that the alumni offer. Results indicated that the maternal complications rates of graduates of obstetrical residency programs were indicative of the quality of such programs.