Article

Labor induction process improvement: A patient quality-of-care initiative

Magee-Womens Hospital, and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 05/2009; 113(4):797-803. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819c9e3d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine the effects that medical staff education and a new process for scheduling inductions had on decreasing inappropriate inductions.
At our institution in 2004, guidelines were developed and shared with the medical staff and reinforced in 2005. The guidelines for elective induction required patients to have completed 39 weeks of gestation and to have a Bishop score of at least 8 for nulliparas and 6 for multiparas. In 2006, the induction scheduling process was changed and the guidelines were strictly enforced. All scheduled inductions during the same 3-month time period (June through August) in 2004 (n=533) and 2005 (n=454) and during a 13-month period from November 2006 to December 2007 (n=1,806) were compared. Outcomes included elective inductions less than 39 weeks, cesarean birth rate for elective inductions among nulliparas, and the overall induction rate.
From 2004-2007, the overall induction rate dropped from 24.9% to 16.6%, a 33% reduction(P<.001); the elective induction rate dropped from 9.1% to 6.4%, a 30% reduction (P<.001); the percentage of elective inductions before 39 weeks of gestation dropped from 11.8% to 4.3%, a decrease of 64% (P<.001); and the frequency of cesarean delivery among nulliparas undergoing elective induction dropped from 34.5% to 13.8%, a decrease of 60%. (P=.01).
Medical staff education and the development and enforcement of induction guidelines contributed to a decrease in inappropriate inductions, a lower cesarean birth rate for electively induced nulliparas, and a lower elective and overall induction rate.
III.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: John M Fisch, Aug 23, 2015
5 Followers
 · 
394 Views
  • Source
    • "Considering that elective induction of labor has potential health, financial, and societal ramifications (Angood et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2007; Podulka et al., 2008; Vardo et al., 2011), there is ongoing discussion about how best to reduce, if not eradicate, this practice. Although strict hospital protocols may significantly decrease elective induction of labor (Donovan et al., 2010; Fisch et al., 2009; O&apos;Rourke et al., 2011; Oshiro et al., 2009; Reisner et al., 2009), without addressing the underlying factors, it can be anticipated that the unresolved issues will manifest in other ways. Opportunities to meaningfully implement evidence-based care and change practice will be missed in maternity care settings where strict policies are more challenging to enforce. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In response to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, clinicians and researchers are critically evaluating methods to engage patients in implementing evidence-based care to improve health outcomes. However, most models on implementation only target clinicians or health systems as the adopters of evidence. Patients are largely ignored in these models. A new implementation model that captures the complex but important role of patients in the uptake of evidence may be a critical missing link. Through a process of theory evaluation and development, we explore patient-centered concepts (patient activation and shared decision making) within an implementation model by mapping qualitative data from an elective induction of labor study to assess the model's ability to capture these key concepts. The process demonstrated that a new, patient-centered model for implementation is needed. In response, the Evidence Informed Decision Making through Engagement Model is presented. We conclude that, by fully integrating women into an implementation model, outcomes that are important to both the clinician and patient will improve. In the interest of providing evidence-based care to women during pregnancy and childbirth, it is essential that care is patient centered. The inclusion of concepts discussed in this article has the potential to extend beyond maternity care and influence other clinical areas. Utilizing the newly developed Evidence Informed Decision Making through Engagement Model provides a framework for utilizing evidence and translating it into practice while acknowledging the important role that women have in the process. Copyright © 2015 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Women s Health Issues 04/2015; 25(3). DOI:10.1016/j.whi.2015.02.002 · 1.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Elective induction of labor is at an all-time high in the United States despite known associated risks. It can lead to birth of an infant too early, a long labor, exposure to a high-alert medication with its potential side effects, unnecessary cesarean birth, and maternal and neonatal morbidity. There is a cascade of interventions related to elective induction such as an intravenous line, continuous electronic fetal monitoring, confinement to bed, amniotomy, pharmacologic labor stimulating agents, parental pain medications, and regional anesthesia, each with their own set of potential complications and risk of iatrogenic harm. These risks apply to all women having the procedure, however for nulliparous women before 41 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix, the main risk is cesarean birth after unsuccessful labor induction with the potential for maternal and neonatal morbidity and increased healthcare costs. When cesarean occurs, subsequent births are likely to be via cesarean as well. Elective labor induction before 41 weeks is inconsistent with quality perinatal care, and performance of this unnecessary procedure should be minimized. Convenience as the reason for labor induction is contrary to a culture focused on patient safety. A review of current evidence, followed by changes in practice, is warranted to support the safest care possible during labor and birth. Various strategies to reduce the rate of elective induction in the United States are presented.
    The Journal of perinatal & neonatal nursing 01/2010; 24(1):43-52; quiz 53-4. DOI:10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181d81e4b · 1.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital quality measures have matured in many specialties but have lagged behind in maternity care. Recently, the National Quality Forum (NQF) has endorsed a series of 17 quality measures for perinatal care. It is important for all obstetric practitioners and leaders to understand these measures, as they form the basis of judging the quality of our hospital services for the next decade. Measure characteristics are examined including how they are developed and judged, and then the nine obstetric care measures are discussed in detail, including their literature support and specifications. The challenges of designing and testing new measures are explored. The importance of this measure set is stressed, as both the Joint Commission and the Leapfrog Group have chosen their next set of perinatal measures from this group as will state and regional public reporting organizations. Hospital quality improvement activities will be increasingly focused on improving performance on these measures. The current NQF measure set is not perfect but represents a reasonable start, covering a range of obstetric practice. Many of the measures could use further refinement and we need research and testing of additional measures going forward.
    Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology 09/2009; 21(6):532-40. DOI:10.1097/GCO.0b013e328332d1b0 · 2.37 Impact Factor
Show more