Lydon-Rochelle Mona T, Cárdenas Vicky, Nelson Jennifer C, Holt Victoria L, Gardella Carolyn, Easterling Thomas R
Department of Family Child Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-7562, USA.
Med Care. 2007 Jun;45(6):505-12. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3180330e26.
Induction of labor is an increasingly common obstetrical procedure, with approximately 20-34% of women undergoing labor induction in the United States annually.
To determine the extent of labor induction in the absence of standard medical indications and to assess possible associations with maternal and infant characteristics and hospital factors.
We ascertained induction of labor and associated details as part of a medical record validation study of 4541 women with live, singleton births in 2000 in Washington State using medical record, birth certificate, and hospital discharge data. In this analysis, we report findings for the 1473 women (33% of original cohort) whose medical records indicated that their labors were induced.
Among women with induced labor, 7.9% had no clinical information providing an indication for the induction, and 6.4% had only "nonstandard" indications recorded. Compared with women delivering in moderate volume hospitals, women who delivered at lower volume (odds ratios [OR] 3.9; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.8-8.6) or higher volume hospitals (OR 4.2; 95% CI 2.4-7.2) had significantly increased risk for undocumented indication of labor. Women who had undocumented indication for induction were at significantly decreased risk of giving birth at a teaching hospital and a public nonfederally owned hospital, and were at greater risk to give birth at a private religious hospital. Factors that remained independently associated with nonstandard indication for induction of labor were primiparas (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.3-4.2); multiparas (OR 4.3; 95% CI 2.5-7.4), pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1-0.4), hospital volume >or=2000 births annually (OR 19.9; 95% CI 6.7-58.6), primary (OR 11.7; 95% CI 4.1-33.6), and tertiary level hospital (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.7).
Our findings suggest that nearly 15% of inductions either were not clinically indicated according to standard protocols or indications were incompletely documented. At minimum, further studies are needed to explore how best to improve documentation of indications of labor because accurately describing, among other things, the process of labor induction, is a basic benchmark of care.
引产是一种越来越常见的产科手术,在美国每年约有20%-34%的女性接受引产。
确定在没有标准医学指征的情况下引产的程度,并评估其与母婴特征及医院因素之间可能存在的关联。
作为对2000年华盛顿州4541例单胎活产女性的病历验证研究的一部分,我们通过病历、出生证明和医院出院数据确定了引产情况及相关细节。在本分析中,我们报告了1473例(占原队列的33%)病历显示为引产的女性的研究结果。
在引产的女性中,7.9%没有提供引产指征的临床信息,6.4%仅有“非标准”指征记录。与在中等规模医院分娩的女性相比,在低规模(比值比[OR]3.9;95%置信区间[CI]1.8-8.6)或高规模医院(OR 4.2;95%CI 2.4-7.2)分娩的女性无记录引产指征的风险显著增加。引产指征未记录的女性在教学医院和公立非联邦所有制医院分娩的风险显著降低,而在私立宗教医院分娩的风险更大。与引产非标准指征仍独立相关的因素有初产妇(OR 2.4;95%CI 1.3-4.2);经产妇(OR 4.3;95%CI 2.5-7.4)、妊娠高血压(OR 0.2;95%CI 0.1-0.4)、医院年分娩量≥2000例(OR 19.9;95%CI 6.7-58.6)、一级(OR 11.7;95%CI 4.1-33.6)和三级医院(OR 0.4;95%CI 0.2-0.7)。
我们的研究结果表明,近15%的引产要么不符合标准方案的临床指征,要么指征记录不完整。至少,需要进一步研究以探索如何最好地改进引产指征的记录,因为准确描述引产过程等是护理的基本标准。