Offerhaus Pien M, Geerts Caroline, de Jonge Ank, Hukkelhoven Chantal W P M, Twisk Jos W R, Lagro-Janssen Antoine L M
KNOV (Royal Dutch Organisation for Midwives), P.O. Box 2001, 3500GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Feb 21;15:42. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0471-x.
The primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman's chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vaginal instrumental birth).
We performed an observational study, using the Dutch national perinatal database. Low risk births in all primary care midwifery practices over the period 2008-2010 were selected. Intrapartum referral rates were calculated. The referral rate among nulliparous women was used to divide the practices in three tertile groups. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis the association between the referral rate and the chance of an instrumental birth was examined.
The intrapartum referral rate varied from 9.7 to 63.7 percent (mean 37.8; SD 7.0), and for nulliparous women from 13.8 to 78.1 percent (mean 56.8; SD 8.4). The variation occurred predominantly in non-urgent referrals in the first stage of labour. In the practices in the lowest tertile group more nulliparous women had a spontaneous vaginal birth compared to the middle and highest tertile group (T1: 77.3%, T2:73.5%, T3: 72.0%). For multiparous women the spontaneous vaginal birth rate was 97%. Compared to the lowest tertile group the odds ratios for nulliparous women for an instrumental birth were 1.22 (CI 1.16-1.31) and 1.33 (CI 1.25-1.41) in the middle and high tertile groups. This association was no longer significant after controlling for obstetric interventions (pain relief or augmentation).
The wide variation between referral rates may not be explained by medical factors or client characteristics alone. A high intrapartum referral rate in a midwifery practice is associated with an increased chance of an instrumental birth for nulliparous women, which is mediated by the increased use of obstetric interventions. Midwives should critically evaluate their referral behaviour. A high referral rate may indicate that more interventions are applied than necessary. This may lead to a lower chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth and a higher risk on a PPH. However, a low referral rate should not be achieved at the cost of perinatal safety.
本研究的主要目的是描述荷兰助产实践中分娩期转诊率的差异。其次,我们想探讨实践转诊率与产妇器械助产分娩(剖宫产或阴道器械助产)几率之间的关联。
我们利用荷兰国家围产期数据库进行了一项观察性研究。选取了2008 - 2010年期间所有初级保健助产实践中的低风险分娩案例。计算分娩期转诊率。初产妇的转诊率被用于将这些实践分为三个三分位数组。在多水平逻辑回归分析中,研究转诊率与器械助产分娩几率之间的关联。
分娩期转诊率在9.7%至63.7%之间(平均37.8%;标准差7.0),初产妇的转诊率在13.8%至78.1%之间(平均56.8%;标准差8.4)。这种差异主要发生在产程第一阶段的非紧急转诊中。在最低三分位数组的实践中,与中间和最高三分位数组相比,更多初产妇实现了自然阴道分娩(T1:77.3%,T2:73.5%,T3:72.0%)。经产妇的自然阴道分娩率为97%。与最低三分位数组相比,中间和高三分位数组初产妇器械助产分娩的比值比分别为1.22(可信区间1.16 - 1.31)和1.33(可信区间1.25 - 1.41)。在控制产科干预措施(镇痛或引产)后,这种关联不再显著。
转诊率之间的广泛差异可能不能仅由医学因素或客户特征来解释。助产实践中分娩期转诊率高与初产妇器械助产分娩几率增加相关,这是由产科干预措施使用增加所介导的。助产士应严格评估她们的转诊行为。高转诊率可能表明应用的干预措施比必要的更多。这可能导致自然阴道分娩几率降低和产后出血风险增加。然而,低转诊率不应以牺牲围产期安全为代价。