Cargando…

Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman’s chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vagin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Offerhaus, Pien M, Geerts, Caroline, de Jonge, Ank, Hukkelhoven, Chantal WPM, Twisk, Jos WR, Lagro-Janssen, Antoine LM
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342018/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0471-x
_version_ 1782359225132908544
author Offerhaus, Pien M
Geerts, Caroline
de Jonge, Ank
Hukkelhoven, Chantal WPM
Twisk, Jos WR
Lagro-Janssen, Antoine LM
author_facet Offerhaus, Pien M
Geerts, Caroline
de Jonge, Ank
Hukkelhoven, Chantal WPM
Twisk, Jos WR
Lagro-Janssen, Antoine LM
author_sort Offerhaus, Pien M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman’s chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vaginal instrumental birth). METHODS: We performed an observational study, using the Dutch national perinatal database. Low risk births in all primary care midwifery practices over the period 2008–2010 were selected. Intrapartum referral rates were calculated. The referral rate among nulliparous women was used to divide the practices in three tertile groups. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis the association between the referral rate and the chance of an instrumental birth was examined. RESULTS: The intrapartum referral rate varied from 9.7 to 63.7 percent (mean 37.8; SD 7.0), and for nulliparous women from 13.8 to 78.1 percent (mean 56.8; SD 8.4). The variation occurred predominantly in non-urgent referrals in the first stage of labour. In the practices in the lowest tertile group more nulliparous women had a spontaneous vaginal birth compared to the middle and highest tertile group (T1: 77.3%, T2:73.5%, T3: 72.0%). For multiparous women the spontaneous vaginal birth rate was 97%. Compared to the lowest tertile group the odds ratios for nulliparous women for an instrumental birth were 1.22 (CI 1.16-1.31) and 1.33 (CI 1.25-1.41) in the middle and high tertile groups. This association was no longer significant after controlling for obstetric interventions (pain relief or augmentation). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation between referral rates may not be explained by medical factors or client characteristics alone. A high intrapartum referral rate in a midwifery practice is associated with an increased chance of an instrumental birth for nulliparous women, which is mediated by the increased use of obstetric interventions. Midwives should critically evaluate their referral behaviour. A high referral rate may indicate that more interventions are applied than necessary. This may lead to a lower chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth and a higher risk on a PPH. However, a low referral rate should not be achieved at the cost of perinatal safety.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4342018
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43420182015-02-27 Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study Offerhaus, Pien M Geerts, Caroline de Jonge, Ank Hukkelhoven, Chantal WPM Twisk, Jos WR Lagro-Janssen, Antoine LM BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman’s chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vaginal instrumental birth). METHODS: We performed an observational study, using the Dutch national perinatal database. Low risk births in all primary care midwifery practices over the period 2008–2010 were selected. Intrapartum referral rates were calculated. The referral rate among nulliparous women was used to divide the practices in three tertile groups. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis the association between the referral rate and the chance of an instrumental birth was examined. RESULTS: The intrapartum referral rate varied from 9.7 to 63.7 percent (mean 37.8; SD 7.0), and for nulliparous women from 13.8 to 78.1 percent (mean 56.8; SD 8.4). The variation occurred predominantly in non-urgent referrals in the first stage of labour. In the practices in the lowest tertile group more nulliparous women had a spontaneous vaginal birth compared to the middle and highest tertile group (T1: 77.3%, T2:73.5%, T3: 72.0%). For multiparous women the spontaneous vaginal birth rate was 97%. Compared to the lowest tertile group the odds ratios for nulliparous women for an instrumental birth were 1.22 (CI 1.16-1.31) and 1.33 (CI 1.25-1.41) in the middle and high tertile groups. This association was no longer significant after controlling for obstetric interventions (pain relief or augmentation). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation between referral rates may not be explained by medical factors or client characteristics alone. A high intrapartum referral rate in a midwifery practice is associated with an increased chance of an instrumental birth for nulliparous women, which is mediated by the increased use of obstetric interventions. Midwives should critically evaluate their referral behaviour. A high referral rate may indicate that more interventions are applied than necessary. This may lead to a lower chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth and a higher risk on a PPH. However, a low referral rate should not be achieved at the cost of perinatal safety. BioMed Central 2015-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4342018/ /pubmed/25885706 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0471-x Text en © Offerhaus et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Offerhaus, Pien M
Geerts, Caroline
de Jonge, Ank
Hukkelhoven, Chantal WPM
Twisk, Jos WR
Lagro-Janssen, Antoine LM
Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study
title Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study
title_full Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study
title_fullStr Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study
title_short Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study
title_sort variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the netherlands: a nationwide cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342018/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0471-x
work_keys_str_mv AT offerhauspienm variationinreferralstosecondaryobstetricianledcareamongprimarymidwiferycarepracticesinthenetherlandsanationwidecohortstudy
AT geertscaroline variationinreferralstosecondaryobstetricianledcareamongprimarymidwiferycarepracticesinthenetherlandsanationwidecohortstudy
AT dejongeank variationinreferralstosecondaryobstetricianledcareamongprimarymidwiferycarepracticesinthenetherlandsanationwidecohortstudy
AT hukkelhovenchantalwpm variationinreferralstosecondaryobstetricianledcareamongprimarymidwiferycarepracticesinthenetherlandsanationwidecohortstudy
AT twiskjoswr variationinreferralstosecondaryobstetricianledcareamongprimarymidwiferycarepracticesinthenetherlandsanationwidecohortstudy
AT lagrojanssenantoinelm variationinreferralstosecondaryobstetricianledcareamongprimarymidwiferycarepracticesinthenetherlandsanationwidecohortstudy