Cargando…

Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries

BACKGROUND: Daily delivery volume might affect the quality of obstetric care. We explored the busy day effect on selected obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia performed during labour in different sized delivery hospitals and on the Finnish obstetric ecosystem. METHODS: We conducted a cro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vilkko, Riitta, Räisänen, Sari, Gissler, Mika, Stefanovic, Vedran, Kalliala, Ilkka, Heinonen, Seppo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9190134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35698049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04798-6
_version_ 1784725728455032832
author Vilkko, Riitta
Räisänen, Sari
Gissler, Mika
Stefanovic, Vedran
Kalliala, Ilkka
Heinonen, Seppo
author_facet Vilkko, Riitta
Räisänen, Sari
Gissler, Mika
Stefanovic, Vedran
Kalliala, Ilkka
Heinonen, Seppo
author_sort Vilkko, Riitta
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Daily delivery volume might affect the quality of obstetric care. We explored the busy day effect on selected obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia performed during labour in different sized delivery hospitals and on the Finnish obstetric ecosystem. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study on Finnish Medical Birth Register data of singleton pregnancies (N = 601,247) from 26 delivery hospitals from 2006 to 2016. Delivery hospitals were stratified by annual delivery volume: C (category) 1: < 1000, C2: 1000–1999, C3: 2000–2999, C4: ≥3000, and C5: university hospitals. The exposure variables were defined as quiet, optimal, and busy days determined based on daily delivery volume distribution in each hospital category. Quiet and busy days included approximately 10% of the lowest and highest delivery volume days, while the rest were defined as optimal. Outcome measures were unplanned caesarean section (CS), instrumental delivery, induction of labour, and epidural analgesia. We compared the incidence of outcomes in quiet vs. optimal, busy vs. optimal, and busy vs. quiet days using logistic regression. The statistical significance level was set at 99% to reduce the likelihood of significant spurious findings. RESULTS: In the total population, the incidence of instrumental delivery was 8% (99% CI 2–15%) lower on quiet than on optimal days. In smaller hospitals (C1 and C2), unplanned caesarean sections were performed up to one-third less frequently on busy than optimal and quiet days. More (27%, 99% CI 12–44%) instrumental deliveries were performed in higher delivery volume hospitals (C4) on busy than quiet days. In C1-C3, deliveries were induced (12–35%) less often and in C5 (37%, 99% CI 28–45%) more often on busy than optimal delivery days. More (59–61%) epidural analgesia was performed on busy than optimal and quiet days in C4 and 8% less in C2 hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analysis showed that busyness had no effect on outcomes at the obstetric ecosystem level, but 10% fewer instrumental deliveries were performed in quiet than on busy days overall. Furthermore, dissecting the data shows that small hospitals perform less, and large non-tertiary hospitals perform more interventions during busy days.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9190134
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91901342022-06-14 Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries Vilkko, Riitta Räisänen, Sari Gissler, Mika Stefanovic, Vedran Kalliala, Ilkka Heinonen, Seppo BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research BACKGROUND: Daily delivery volume might affect the quality of obstetric care. We explored the busy day effect on selected obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia performed during labour in different sized delivery hospitals and on the Finnish obstetric ecosystem. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study on Finnish Medical Birth Register data of singleton pregnancies (N = 601,247) from 26 delivery hospitals from 2006 to 2016. Delivery hospitals were stratified by annual delivery volume: C (category) 1: < 1000, C2: 1000–1999, C3: 2000–2999, C4: ≥3000, and C5: university hospitals. The exposure variables were defined as quiet, optimal, and busy days determined based on daily delivery volume distribution in each hospital category. Quiet and busy days included approximately 10% of the lowest and highest delivery volume days, while the rest were defined as optimal. Outcome measures were unplanned caesarean section (CS), instrumental delivery, induction of labour, and epidural analgesia. We compared the incidence of outcomes in quiet vs. optimal, busy vs. optimal, and busy vs. quiet days using logistic regression. The statistical significance level was set at 99% to reduce the likelihood of significant spurious findings. RESULTS: In the total population, the incidence of instrumental delivery was 8% (99% CI 2–15%) lower on quiet than on optimal days. In smaller hospitals (C1 and C2), unplanned caesarean sections were performed up to one-third less frequently on busy than optimal and quiet days. More (27%, 99% CI 12–44%) instrumental deliveries were performed in higher delivery volume hospitals (C4) on busy than quiet days. In C1-C3, deliveries were induced (12–35%) less often and in C5 (37%, 99% CI 28–45%) more often on busy than optimal delivery days. More (59–61%) epidural analgesia was performed on busy than optimal and quiet days in C4 and 8% less in C2 hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analysis showed that busyness had no effect on outcomes at the obstetric ecosystem level, but 10% fewer instrumental deliveries were performed in quiet than on busy days overall. Furthermore, dissecting the data shows that small hospitals perform less, and large non-tertiary hospitals perform more interventions during busy days. BioMed Central 2022-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9190134/ /pubmed/35698049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04798-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Vilkko, Riitta
Räisänen, Sari
Gissler, Mika
Stefanovic, Vedran
Kalliala, Ilkka
Heinonen, Seppo
Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries
title Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries
title_full Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries
title_fullStr Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries
title_full_unstemmed Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries
title_short Busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries
title_sort busy day effect on the use of obstetrical interventions and epidural analgesia during labour: a cross-sectional register study of 601 247 deliveries
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9190134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35698049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04798-6
work_keys_str_mv AT vilkkoriitta busydayeffectontheuseofobstetricalinterventionsandepiduralanalgesiaduringlabouracrosssectionalregisterstudyof601247deliveries
AT raisanensari busydayeffectontheuseofobstetricalinterventionsandepiduralanalgesiaduringlabouracrosssectionalregisterstudyof601247deliveries
AT gisslermika busydayeffectontheuseofobstetricalinterventionsandepiduralanalgesiaduringlabouracrosssectionalregisterstudyof601247deliveries
AT stefanovicvedran busydayeffectontheuseofobstetricalinterventionsandepiduralanalgesiaduringlabouracrosssectionalregisterstudyof601247deliveries
AT kallialailkka busydayeffectontheuseofobstetricalinterventionsandepiduralanalgesiaduringlabouracrosssectionalregisterstudyof601247deliveries
AT heinonenseppo busydayeffectontheuseofobstetricalinterventionsandepiduralanalgesiaduringlabouracrosssectionalregisterstudyof601247deliveries