Consent Practices for Assisted Vaginal Births (AVB) at Two Tertiary Care Hospitals: A Retrospective Review of Physician Documentation.

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.