Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives · 2008
An evaluation of Midwifery Group Practice. Part I: clinical effectiveness.
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.
Turnbull Deborah, Baghurst Peter, Collins Carmel, Cornwell Chris, Nixon Anne, Donnelan-Fernandez Roslyn, Antoniou Georgia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) is a continuity of midwifery care model for women in all risk groups (Low, Moderate and High) available at a tertiary metropolitan hospital in Australia. This demonstration study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of MGP with other models of care at the hospital.
METHODS: Comparisons of clinical outcomes were made between women who received care under MGP (n=618) and those receiving 'Other' modes of care at the hospital (n=3548) between three risk categories over a 15-month period.
RESULTS: There were more Low (MGP n=218, 35.3%, 'Other' n=773, 21.8%) and fewer High Risk (MGP n=46, 7.4%, 'Other' n=564, 15.9%) women in MGP, with similar proportions of Moderate Risk women (MGP n=354, 57.3%, 'Other' n=2211, 62.3%). Significant differences include: fewer assisted deliveries for Moderate Risk women in MGP (27.7% MGP, 46.1% 'Other'); fewer labour inductions (Low Risk: 12.8% MGP, 25.1% 'Other'; Moderate Risk: 21.8% MGP, 29.5% 'Other'; High Risk: 19.6% MGP, 34.9% 'Other'); less epidural analgesia (Low Risk: 22.5% MGP, 49.0% 'Other'; Moderate Risk: 20.3% MGP, 38.4% 'Other'; High Risk: 17.4% MGP, 32.6% 'Other'); and differences in the overall pattern of perineal trauma. No significant differences were found in the incidence of post-partum haemorrhage, antenatal hospital admissions, or neonatal admission to Special or Intensive Care.
CONCLUSIONS: MGP is clinically effective when practiced in a routine setting.
METHODS: Comparisons of clinical outcomes were made between women who received care under MGP (n=618) and those receiving 'Other' modes of care at the hospital (n=3548) between three risk categories over a 15-month period.
RESULTS: There were more Low (MGP n=218, 35.3%, 'Other' n=773, 21.8%) and fewer High Risk (MGP n=46, 7.4%, 'Other' n=564, 15.9%) women in MGP, with similar proportions of Moderate Risk women (MGP n=354, 57.3%, 'Other' n=2211, 62.3%). Significant differences include: fewer assisted deliveries for Moderate Risk women in MGP (27.7% MGP, 46.1% 'Other'); fewer labour inductions (Low Risk: 12.8% MGP, 25.1% 'Other'; Moderate Risk: 21.8% MGP, 29.5% 'Other'; High Risk: 19.6% MGP, 34.9% 'Other'); less epidural analgesia (Low Risk: 22.5% MGP, 49.0% 'Other'; Moderate Risk: 20.3% MGP, 38.4% 'Other'; High Risk: 17.4% MGP, 32.6% 'Other'); and differences in the overall pattern of perineal trauma. No significant differences were found in the incidence of post-partum haemorrhage, antenatal hospital admissions, or neonatal admission to Special or Intensive Care.
CONCLUSIONS: MGP is clinically effective when practiced in a routine setting.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AustraliaFemaleGroup PracticeHealth Care SurveysHumansInfant, NewbornMidwiferyModels, NursingNurse's RoleNurse-Patient RelationsNursing Methodology ResearchObstetrics and Gynecology Department, HospitalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePrenatal Care