Hueston W J, Applegate J A, Mansfield C J, King D E, McClaflin R R
Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine, USA.
J Fam Pract. 1995 Apr;40(4):345-51.
Studies suggest that family physicians and other generalist physicians practice differently than specialists. This study was performed to determine whether practice patterns and outcomes differ for women with low-risk pregnancies who obtain maternity care from family physicians as compared with those who are cared for by obstetricians.
A retrospective chart review was performed at five sites across the United States. Women who presented for elective repeat cesarean section or who had any one of 14 high-risk conditions were excluded from the analysis. The final sample analyzed included 4865 women. Family physicians managed the labor of 2000 of these women, and obstetricians managed 2865.
During intrapartum care, women managed by family physicians were less likely to have their labor induced (8.6% vs 10.4%, P = .03), receive oxytocin augmentation (14.9% vs 17.8%, P = .006), or receive epidural anesthesia (5.4% vs 17.0%, P < .001) as compared with those managed by obstetricians. Delivery outcomes showed that patients of family physicians were less likely to have an episiotomy during vaginal delivery (53.7% vs 74.5%, P < .001) and a lower frequency of cesarean section deliveries (9.3% vs 16.0%, P < .001), especially for cephalopelvic disproportion. When adjusted for potential confounders, rates for cesarean section and episiotomy for obstetricians were still significantly higher than those of family physicians. For neonatal outcomes (low 1-minute Apgar score, neonatal intensive care unit admission, birth trauma, or neonatal infection), no significant differences were found between the care delivered by obstetricians and family physicians.
Women obtaining maternity care from family physicians were less likely to receive epidural anesthesia during labor or an episiotomy after vaginal births, and had a lower rate of cesarean section delivery rates, primarily because of a decreased frequency in the diagnosis of cephalopelvic disproportion. Differences between outcomes persisted after adjustment for potential confounders such as parity, previous cesarean delivery, and use of epidural anesthesia during labor. No differences between the two physician groups with respect to neonatal outcomes were found.
研究表明,家庭医生和其他全科医生的行医方式与专科医生不同。本研究旨在确定接受家庭医生产科护理的低风险妊娠女性与接受产科医生护理的女性相比,其执业模式和结局是否存在差异。
在美国五个地点进行了一项回顾性病历审查。计划进行择期再次剖宫产或患有14种高危情况之一的女性被排除在分析之外。最终分析样本包括4865名女性。其中2000名女性由家庭医生管理分娩,2865名由产科医生管理。
在产时护理期间,与产科医生管理的女性相比,家庭医生管理的女性引产的可能性较小(8.6%对10.4%,P = 0.03),接受缩宫素加强宫缩的可能性较小(14.9%对17.8%,P = 0.006),或接受硬膜外麻醉的可能性较小(5.4%对17.0%,P < 0.001)。分娩结局显示,家庭医生的患者在阴道分娩时进行会阴切开术的可能性较小(53.7%对74.5%,P < 0.001),剖宫产分娩的频率较低(9.3%对16.0%,P < 0.001),尤其是头盆不称。在对潜在混杂因素进行调整后,产科医生的剖宫产和会阴切开术发生率仍显著高于家庭医生。对于新生儿结局(1分钟阿氏评分低、新生儿重症监护病房入院、产伤或新生儿感染),产科医生和家庭医生提供的护理之间未发现显著差异。
接受家庭医生产科护理的女性在分娩时接受硬膜外麻醉或阴道分娩后进行会阴切开术的可能性较小,剖宫产率较低,主要原因是头盆不称的诊断频率降低。在对潜在混杂因素如产次、既往剖宫产和分娩时使用硬膜外麻醉进行调整后,结局差异仍然存在。两组医生在新生儿结局方面未发现差异。