Article

A comparison of outcomes between joint and physician-only obstetric practices.

Department of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States
Birth (Impact Factor: 2.05). 01/1995; 21(4):197-205. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1994.tb00530.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Since 1981, the cesarean birth rate of a joint practice has been consistently lower than that of physician-only practices at a private community hospital in Yolo County, California. This study sought to determine whether differences in perinatal outcomes were influenced by women's use of a joint versus a physician-only practice or were associated with parity, maternal age, or newborn birthweight. Data from the hospital's 1634 consecutive singleton births in 1990 were examined, using a prospective concurrent analytic cohort study design. Chi square statistics and stepwise logistic regressions were used for data analysis. The joint practice had a significantly lower rate of total cesarean births (9.3%) compared with the physician-only practices (17.7%); the frequencies of severe lacerations were 1.0 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. No significant differences were found in parity, birthweight, or newborn outcomes in the two types of practice. Type of practice was the major determinant of cesarean birth (p < 0.0001). All variables studied, including type of practice, were significant determinants of primary cesarean birth. Parity and practice type were significant determinants of third- and fourth-degree lacerations (p < 0.0001). The type of practice from which women receive care is significantly associated with both method of birth and possibility of severe perineal trauma.

1 Follower
 · 
42 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Is vaginal birth after cesarean in the community a disappearing practice? Since 1996 the rate of trial of labor after cesarean for low-risk women has dropped precipitously. This paper reviews the current literature and summarizes opinions of community obstetricians and midwives. Descriptive data are presented to document the scope of the problem and identify barriers: liability concerns, provider biases, and institutional restrictions. Our perspective draws on experience in our community hospital with a previously high vaginal birth after cesarean rate and a subsequent ban. Strategies to reduce the skyrocketing cesarean rate and encourage trial of labor after cesarean for low-risk women are outlined.
    Clinical obstetrics and gynecology 12/2012; 55(4):997-1004. DOI:10.1097/GRF.0b013e31826fe5fa · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This pilot study was designed to describe the clinical areas of collaboration, financial structures, and sources of conflict for certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) involved in nurse-midwife and physician collaborative practice (CP). A questionnaire was posted on an electronic bulletin board maintained by the Community-Based Nurse Midwifery Education Program of the Frontier School of Nursing. The nonrandom, convenience sample consisted of 78 respondents. Their mean age was 42 years; they had been in practice for a mean of 10 years, and 56% had graduate degrees. Eighty-nine percent reported involvement in CP. Eighty-three percent co-managed higher-risk women, and 46% performed vacuum-assisted deliveries or were first assistants at cesarean sections. Forty-eight percent of CNMs did not bill in their own names, and only 12% had full hospital privileges. The most common sources of conflict in CPs were clinical practice issues (100% ever encountered), power inequities (92%), financial issues (66%), and gender relations (58%). Collaborative practice is a common form of practice for CNMs and suggests a model for collaboration in other sectors of the health care system. Future research should explore methods of reducing the potential for conflict between CNMs and physicians.
    Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 01/1997; 42(4):308-315.
  • Health Affairs 06/2013; 32(6):1171. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0272 · 4.64 Impact Factor