University ofWashington,Department of Global Health, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012 Jan-Feb;57(1):18-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00075.x. Epub 2011 Sep 23.
We evaluated the quality of basic obstetric care provided by Mexican general physicians, obstetric nurses, and professional midwives compared with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for evidence-based practices and national guidelines.
Vaginal births were observed in 5 hospitals in 5 states from June 2006 until July 2007. We created 5 indices based on WHO guidelines and national standards for care during normal birth. These indices included 1) favorable practices at admission, 2) favorable practices during labor, birth, and immediately postpartum, 3) harmful or excessively used practices, 4) newborn practices, and 5) obstetric outcomes. We assessed each provider type's performance as high or low compared with the WHO standard and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to assess the association between indices, patient characteristics, and provider type, adjusting for standard errors for intragroup correlation.
We observed 876 independently managed vaginal births. Adjusted regression analyses compared with the general physicians standard revealed significant results for favorable care by obstetric nurses on admission (odds ratio [OR] 6.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-18.84); for care by professional midwives (OR 21.08; 95% CI, 4.24-104.94) and obstetric nurses (OR 7.88; 95% CI, 2.76-22.52) during labor, birth, and postpartum; and for newborn practices by obstetric nurses (OR 4.14; 95% CI, 1.08-15.90). Professional midwives were least likely to perform harmful/excessively used practices during labor, birth, and the postpartum period (OR 0.06; 95% CI, 0.00-0.35).
Professional midwives and obstetric nurses perform equally or better than general physicians when assessed by use or misuse of evidence-based practices. Professional midwives are an underutilized resource in Mexico. If integrated into the mainstream Mexican health system, they may improve the quality of obstetric care.
我们评估了墨西哥普通内科医生、产科护士和专业助产士提供的基本产科护理质量,与世界卫生组织(WHO)循证实践指南和国家指南进行了比较。
2006 年 6 月至 2007 年 7 月,我们在 5 个州的 5 家医院观察了阴道分娩。我们根据 WHO 指南和国家正常分娩护理标准创建了 5 个指数。这些指数包括 1)入院时的有利做法,2)分娩、出生和产后立即的有利做法,3)有害或过度使用的做法,4)新生儿的做法,和 5)产科结局。我们将每个提供者类型的表现与 WHO 标准进行了高低评估,并进行了双变量和多变量逻辑回归分析,以评估指数、患者特征和提供者类型之间的关联,同时调整了组内相关的标准误差。
我们观察了 876 例独立管理的阴道分娩。与普通内科医生标准的调整后回归分析相比,产科护士在入院时的有利护理(优势比 [OR] 6.25;95%置信区间 [CI],2.08-18.84);专业助产士(OR 21.08;95% CI,4.24-104.94)和产科护士(OR 7.88;95% CI,2.76-22.52)在分娩、出生和产后期间;以及产科护士的新生儿护理(OR 4.14;95% CI,1.08-15.90)。专业助产士在分娩、出生和产后期间最不可能进行有害/过度使用的做法(OR 0.06;95% CI,0.00-0.35)。
专业助产士和产科护士在评估循证实践的使用或误用时,表现得与普通内科医生一样或更好。专业助产士在墨西哥的利用率较低。如果将其整合到主流的墨西哥卫生系统中,可能会提高产科护理质量。