Campbell R, Macfarlane A, Hempsall V, Hatchard K
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
Midwifery. 1999 Sep;15(3):183-93. doi: 10.1016/s0266-6138(99)90063-3.
To compare the outcome of care given to women 'booking' for delivery in a midwife-led maternity unit with that for comparable women 'booking' for care in a consultant obstetric unit.
Prospective cohort study with a quasi-experimental design and data extracted from case notes.
East Dorset, midwife-led maternity unit at Royal Bournemouth Hospital and consultant-led maternity unit at Poole General Hospital.
Two cohorts of women who satisfied the criteria for 'booking' at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. Of these 794 'booked' at Bournemouth from 1 November 1992 to 30 June 1993 and 705 'booked' at Poole over the same period. MAIN PROCESS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Care given, morbidity in women and their babies, transfers during the antenatal period and in labour.
Of the women who initially 'booked' for Bournemouth, 62.3% actually delivered there, 27.1% transferred before labour and a further 9.2% transferred during labour. No differences were seen between those 'booked' for Bournemouth or Poole in the proportions of low birthweight babies, babies who were transferred to special care or babies who had congenital abnormality. Higher proportions of babies whose mothers 'booked' for delivery in Poole were resuscitated and had one minute Apgar scores below seven but there was no difference in the five minute scores. Similar proportions of women had perineal tears but fewer of the women 'booked' for delivery in Bournemouth had an episiotomy. 'Booking' for Poole was associated with higher rates of induction and augmentation of labour and greater use of anesthesia. 'Booking' for Bournemouth was associated with a shorter first stage and a longer third stage of labour. Women 'booked' for delivery in Bournemouth were no more likely to be delivered by a midwife than those 'booked' for Poole.
There was very little difference between the groups of women who initially 'booked' for delivery at the two units. There were differences in the patterns of care received, but no major differences in the outcome for the women or their babies were detected.
比较在由助产士主导的产科病房“登记”分娩的女性所接受的护理结果与在顾问产科病房“登记”接受护理的类似女性的护理结果。
采用准实验设计的前瞻性队列研究,并从病历中提取数据。
东多塞特郡,皇家伯恩茅斯医院由助产士主导的产科病房以及普尔总医院由顾问主导的产科病房。
在皇家伯恩茅斯医院符合“登记”标准的两组女性。其中,1992年11月1日至1993年6月30日期间,有794名在伯恩茅斯“登记”,同期有705名在普尔“登记”。主要过程及结果指标:所提供的护理、女性及其婴儿的发病率、产前及分娩期间的转诊情况。
最初在伯恩茅斯“登记”的女性中,62.3%实际在该地分娩,27.1%在临产前转诊,另有9.2%在分娩期间转诊。在低体重儿、转至特殊护理的婴儿或患有先天性异常的婴儿比例方面,在伯恩茅斯“登记”和在普尔“登记”的女性之间未发现差异。母亲在普尔“登记”分娩的婴儿中,接受复苏且一分钟阿氏评分低于7分的比例较高,但五分钟评分无差异。会阴撕裂的女性比例相似,但在伯恩茅斯“登记”分娩的女性中进行会阴切开术的较少。在普尔“登记”与引产和加强宫缩的发生率较高以及更多使用麻醉有关。在伯恩茅斯“登记”与第一产程较短和第三产程较长有关。在伯恩茅斯“登记”分娩的女性由助产士接生的可能性并不比在普尔“登记”的女性更高。
最初在两个病房“登记”分娩的女性群体之间差异极小。所接受的护理模式存在差异,但未发现女性及其婴儿的结局有重大差异。