Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women

被引:81
作者
Rosenblatt, RA
Dobie, SA
Hart, LG
Schneeweiss, R
Gould, D
Raine, TR
Benedetti, TJ
Pirani, MJ
Perrin, EB
机构
[1] UNIV ROCHESTER,SCH MED,DEPT FAMILY MED,ROCHESTER,NY
[2] GEORGETOWN UNIV,MED CTR,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,WASHINGTON,DC
[3] UNIV WASHINGTON,SCH MED,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,SEATTLE,WA 98195
[4] UNIV WASHINGTON,SCH PUBL HLTH & COMMUNITY MED,DEPT HLTH SERV,SEATTLE,WA 98195
关键词
D O I
10.2105/AJPH.87.3.344
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objectives. This study examined differences among obstetricians, family physicians, and certified nurse-midwives in the patterns of obstetric care provided to low-risk patients. Methods. For a random sample of Washington State obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and certified nurse-midwives, records of a random sample of their low-risk patients beginning care between September 1, 1988, and August 31, 1989, were abstracted. Results. Certified nurse-midwives were less likely to use continuous electronic fetal monitoring and had lower rates of labor induction or augmentation than physicians. Certified nurse-midwives also were less likely than physicians to use epidural anesthesia. The cesarean section rate for patients of certified nurse-midwives was 8.8% vs 13.6% for obstetricians and 15.1% for family physicians. Certified nurse-midwives used 12.2% fewer resources. There was little difference between the practice patterns of obstetricians and family physicians. Conclusions. The low-risk patients of certified nurse-midwives in Washington State received fewer obstetrical interventions than similar patients cared for by obstetrician-gynecologists or family physicians. These differences are associated with lower cesarean section rates and less resource use.
引用
收藏
页码:344 / 351
页数:8
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   HOSPITAL SETTING FOR BIRTH AND USE OF MEDICAL PROCEDURES IN LOW-RISK WOMEN [J].
ALBERS, LL ;
SAVITZ, DA .
JOURNAL OF NURSE-MIDWIFERY, 1991, 36 (06) :327-333
[2]   DETERMINANTS OF THE INCREASING CESAREAN BIRTH-RATE - ONTARIO DATA 1979 TO 1982 [J].
ANDERSON, GM ;
LOMAS, J .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1984, 311 (14) :887-892
[3]  
ANDERSON GM, 1985, CAN MED ASSOC J, V132, P253
[4]  
BALDWIN LM, 1994, OBSTET GYNECOL, V84, P549
[5]   RACIAL ETHNIC-DIFFERENCES IN THE LIKELIHOOD OF CESAREAN DELIVERY, CALIFORNIA [J].
BRAVEMAN, P ;
EGERTER, S ;
EDMONSTON, F ;
VERDON, M .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1995, 85 (05) :625-630
[6]   EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT POLICIES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF LABOR [J].
BREART, G ;
MLIKACABANE, N ;
KAMINSKI, M ;
ALEXANDER, S ;
HERRUZONALDA, A ;
MANDRUZZATO, P ;
THORNTON, JG ;
TRAKAS, D .
EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, 1992, 29 (1-3) :309-312
[7]   THE EFFECT OF PHYSICIAN FACTORS ON THE CESAREAN-SECTION DECISION [J].
BURNS, LR ;
GELLER, SE ;
WHOLEY, DR .
MEDICAL CARE, 1995, 33 (04) :365-382
[8]  
Butler M. A., 1990, 9028 USDA EC RES SER
[9]   PREPARING AND UPDATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS OF HEALTH-CARE [J].
CHALMERS, I ;
ENKIN, M ;
KEIRSE, MJNC .
MILBANK QUARTERLY, 1993, 71 (03) :411-437
[10]  
CHAMBLISS LR, 1992, OBSTET GYNECOL, V80, P161