Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC · 2023
Consent Practices for Assisted Vaginal Births (AVB) at Two Tertiary Care Hospitals: A Retrospective Review of Physician Documentation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sheinis Michal, Zhu Jane, Hobson Sebastian, Shah Rajiv, Shapiro Jodi, Shirreff Lindsay
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether assisted vaginal birth (AVB) consent documentation, a surrogate for in vivo consent, aligns with Canadian practice guidelines at 2 Canadian tertiary-level obstetric centres.
METHODS: This was a retrospective review of AVBs (vacuum and forceps) from July 2019 to December 2019 at 2 tertiary-level hospitals with template-based (Site 1) or dictation-based (Site 2) documentation. We extracted, from obstetric and neonatal charts, AVB type, physician and documenter types (resident/fellow/family doctor/generalist obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]/maternal-fetal medicine), and consent elements (present/absent) based on a predetermined checklist. Data were summarized and comparisons were made using chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and logistic regression, where appropriate.
RESULTS: We identified 551 AVBs (156 forceps, 395 vacuum) with most documentation completed by generalist OBGYNs or residents (333/551, 60.5%). Most vacuum-assisted deliveries documented no specific maternal (366/395, 92.7%) or neonatal (364/395, 92.2%) risks, and 107/156 (68.6%) and 106/156 (67.9%) forceps-assisted deliveries lacked specific documentation of maternal and neonatal risk, respectively. At Site 2, postpartum hemorrhage risk at vacuum-assisted deliveries was more commonly documented (6/90 [6.7%] vs. 2/395 [0.7%], P = 0.002) as was at least 1 neonatal risk and risk of obstetrical anal sphincter injury at forceps-assisted deliveries (50/133 [37.6%] vs. 0/23 [0%], P < 0.001) and (43/133 [32.3%] vs. 0/23 [0%], P = 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Opportunity to improve AVB consent documentation exists, warranting quality improvement initiatives.
METHODS: This was a retrospective review of AVBs (vacuum and forceps) from July 2019 to December 2019 at 2 tertiary-level hospitals with template-based (Site 1) or dictation-based (Site 2) documentation. We extracted, from obstetric and neonatal charts, AVB type, physician and documenter types (resident/fellow/family doctor/generalist obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]/maternal-fetal medicine), and consent elements (present/absent) based on a predetermined checklist. Data were summarized and comparisons were made using chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and logistic regression, where appropriate.
RESULTS: We identified 551 AVBs (156 forceps, 395 vacuum) with most documentation completed by generalist OBGYNs or residents (333/551, 60.5%). Most vacuum-assisted deliveries documented no specific maternal (366/395, 92.7%) or neonatal (364/395, 92.2%) risks, and 107/156 (68.6%) and 106/156 (67.9%) forceps-assisted deliveries lacked specific documentation of maternal and neonatal risk, respectively. At Site 2, postpartum hemorrhage risk at vacuum-assisted deliveries was more commonly documented (6/90 [6.7%] vs. 2/395 [0.7%], P = 0.002) as was at least 1 neonatal risk and risk of obstetrical anal sphincter injury at forceps-assisted deliveries (50/133 [37.6%] vs. 0/23 [0%], P < 0.001) and (43/133 [32.3%] vs. 0/23 [0%], P = 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Opportunity to improve AVB consent documentation exists, warranting quality improvement initiatives.