Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section - are current standards achievable? Observational case series

被引:92
作者
Tuffnell, DJ [1 ]
Wilkinson, K [1 ]
Beresford, N [1 ]
机构
[1] Bradford NHS Trust, Matern Unit, Bradford BD9 6RJ, W Yorkshire, England
来源
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2001年 / 322卷 / 7298期
关键词
D O I
10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1330
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives To audit interval from decision to delivery in urgent caesarean section to determine whether the current standard of 30 minutes is achievable routinely; to determine whether delay leads to an excess of admissions to special care. Design Three audit cycles over four years followed by a continuous audit over 32 months. Setting Large district general hospital delivering 5500 women each year. Participants All women delivered by urgent caesarean section for abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, cord prolapse, failed instrumental delivery, or suspected placental abruption. Main outcome measures Proportion of women delivered within 30 and 40 minutes of decision. Admission rates to special care by length of interval between decision and delivery Results In the continuous audit 478 of 721 (66.3%) women were delivered in 30 minutes and 637 (88.3%) within 40 minutes; 29 (4.0%) were undelivered at 50 minutes. If the woman was taken to theatre in 10 minutes, 409 of 500 (81.8%) were delivered in 30 minutes and 495 (97%) in 40 minutes. There was no significant difference in the proportion of babies born at 36 weeks or later who were admitted to special care, when analysed by interval from decision to delivery. 36/449 (8%) babies with an interval, from decision to delivery of less than 30 minutes were admitted to special care and 3/23 (13%) with an interval of more than 50 minutes were admitted. Conclusions The current recommendations for the interval between decision and delivery are not being achieved in routine practice. Failure to meet the recommendations does not seem to increase neonatal morbidity.
引用
收藏
页码:1330 / 1333
页数:4
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]  
*ASS AN GREAT BRIT, 1998, GUID OBST AN SERV
[2]  
Brown G W, 1995, Int J Obstet Anesth, V4, P214, DOI 10.1016/0959-289X(95)82913-U
[3]   A COMPARISON OF OBSTETRIC AND NONOBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA MALPRACTICE CLAIMS [J].
CHADWICK, HS ;
POSNER, K ;
CAPLAN, RA ;
WARD, RJ ;
CHENEY, FW .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1991, 74 (02) :242-249
[4]  
*CLIN NEGL SCHEM T, 1999, CLIN RISK MAN STAND
[5]  
DWYER JP, 1999, 4 INT SCI M ROYAL CO, P13
[6]  
*FOC GROUP, 2000, CONF ENQ STILLB DEAT, P41
[7]   Anesthesia-related deaths during obstetric delivery in the United States, 1979-1990 [J].
Hawkins, JL ;
Koonin, LM ;
Palmer, SK ;
Gibbs, CP .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1997, 86 (02) :277-284
[8]   Training in obstetric general anaesthesia: a vanishing art? [J].
Johnson, RV ;
Lyons, GR ;
Wilson, RC ;
Robinson, APC .
ANAESTHESIA, 2000, 55 (02) :179-183
[9]   Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification [J].
Lucas, DN ;
Yentis, SM ;
Kinsella, SM ;
Holdcroft, A ;
May, AE ;
Wee, M ;
Robinson, PN .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, 2000, 93 (07) :346-350
[10]   A template for defining a causal relation between acute intrapartum events and cerebral palsy: international consensus statement [J].
MacLennan, A .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 319 (7216) :1054-1059