We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Impact of a Restrictive Labor Induction Approval Process.
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2018 October 13
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a restrictive labor induction approval process on induction and primary cesarean delivery rates.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care academic center from 2006 through 2012. The cohort of deliveries before (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) the process included term, singleton pregnancies with no contraindication to vaginal delivery. The primary outcome was induction of labor rates, subgrouped on the basis of whether it was medically or nonmedically indicated. Secondary outcomes included the primary cesarean rate and other maternal and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 13,753 deliveries, 6,746 met study inclusion criteria. There was a significant decrease in induction rates comparing the pre- and post-intervention periods (21.0 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.01). Nonmedically indicated induction rates also decreased significantly (2.9 vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001). No difference was observed in medically indicated induction (18.1 vs. 17.9%, p = 0.84), the primary cesarean rate (14.4 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.12), or any of the measured neonatal outcomes (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a labor induction approval process was associated with a significant reduction in overall and non-indicated induction rates but did not affect the primary cesarean rate or neonatal outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care academic center from 2006 through 2012. The cohort of deliveries before (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) the process included term, singleton pregnancies with no contraindication to vaginal delivery. The primary outcome was induction of labor rates, subgrouped on the basis of whether it was medically or nonmedically indicated. Secondary outcomes included the primary cesarean rate and other maternal and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 13,753 deliveries, 6,746 met study inclusion criteria. There was a significant decrease in induction rates comparing the pre- and post-intervention periods (21.0 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.01). Nonmedically indicated induction rates also decreased significantly (2.9 vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001). No difference was observed in medically indicated induction (18.1 vs. 17.9%, p = 0.84), the primary cesarean rate (14.4 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.12), or any of the measured neonatal outcomes (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a labor induction approval process was associated with a significant reduction in overall and non-indicated induction rates but did not affect the primary cesarean rate or neonatal outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app