Home Individual consultant practice does not affect the overall intervention rate: a 6-year study
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Individual consultant practice does not affect the overall intervention rate: a 6-year study

  • Sanjay Manohar , Christopher F.G. Woods and Stephen W. Lindow EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: May 8, 2014
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
From the journal Journal of Perinatal Medicine Volume 43 Issue 1

Abstract

Background: Differences exist in obstetric intervention rates between hospitals but it is not known if the individual consultant governs the decision to intervene or whether intervention is a product of agreed protocols and working practices. The purpose of this study is to analyse the differences in obstetric intervention rates amongst individual consultants working in a large maternity unit.

Methods: Each consultant was responsible for all deliveries occurring in successive 24-h periods. Over a 6-year period all deliveries resulting from a spontaneous onset of labour were matched to the consultant in charge at the time of the delivery and analysed.

Results: There were no differences seen in normal delivery rates (χ2=4.478, P=0.812) and vacuum (χ2=12.232, P=0.141) rates for the consultants. Significant differences were found in both forceps rate (χ2=21.462, P=0.006) and caesarean rate (χ2=24.535, P=0.002) between consultants. When the forceps rate was combined with vacuum rate there were no significant differences.

Conclusions: Within the hospital, individual consultants demonstrated no significant variations in overall intervention rates. However, when intervention occurred, different consultants showed preferences for forceps and caesarean section.

Keywords: Caesarean; labour management; specialist obstetrician
Corresponding author: Stephen W. Lindow, Senior Lecturer in Perinatology, Women and Children’s Hospital, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals, NHS Trust, Kingston upon Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, UK, Phone: +01482 875875, Fax: +01482 382781, E-mail:

References

[1] Berglund S, Pettersson H, Cnattingius S, Grunewald C. How often is a low Apgar score the result of substandard care during labour? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;117:968–78.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02565.xSearch in Google Scholar

[2] Gardosi J. GRIT: concern about external validity. Lancet. 2005;365:384.10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17821-0Search in Google Scholar

[3] HES Online. Table 10: method of delivery by method of onset of labour; summary table, 2010–11, NHS Hospitals, England. Available at http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1815.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Kilsztajn S, de Souza Lopes E, Nunes do Carmo MS, de Andrade Reyes AM. Apgar score associated with mode of delivery in Sao Paulo, Brazil [Portuguese]. Caderno de Saude Publica. 2007;23:1886–92.10.1590/S0102-311X2007000800015Search in Google Scholar

[5] King JF. Obstetric interventions among private and public patients. Br Med J. 2000;321:125–6.10.1136/bmj.321.7254.125Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[6] Lewis G. The women who died 2006–2008. CMACE. Saving mothers’ lives, reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–2008. The eighth report of the confidential enquires into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;118(Suppl 1):1–203.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02847.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] NHS. Who will I meet? Available at http://nhslocal.nhs.uk/my-health/maternity/who-will-i-meet.Search in Google Scholar

[8] O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD005455.10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Patel RR, Murphy DM. Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice. Br Med J. 2004;328:1302–5.10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1302Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] RCOG. What we do. Available at http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Read AW, Prendiville WJ, Dawes VP, Stanley FJ. Cesarean section and operative vaginal delivery in low-risk primiparous women, Western Australia. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:37–42.10.2105/AJPH.84.1.37Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Roberts CL, Tracy S, Peat B. Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: population based descriptive study. Br Med J. 2000;321:137–41.10.1136/bmj.321.7254.137Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[13] Rosenblatt RA, Dobie SA, Hart LG, Schneeweiss R, Gould D, Raine TR, et al. Interspeciality differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:344–51.10.2105/AJPH.87.3.344Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[14] Thorngren-Jerneck K, Herbst A. Low 5-minute Apgar score: a population-based register study of 1 million term births. Am Coll Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:65–70.10.1097/00006250-200107000-00012Search in Google Scholar

The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2014-1-20
Accepted: 2014-4-4
Published Online: 2014-5-8
Published in Print: 2015-1-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Academy’s Corner
  3. Maternal mortality: an ongoing challenge to perinatal medicine
  4. Fetal mild ventriculomegaly: still a challenging problem
  5. Review article
  6. Natural killer cell in the developing life
  7. Original articles – Obstetrics
  8. Clinical chorioamnionitis at term I: microbiology of the amniotic cavity using cultivation and molecular techniques
  9. Individual consultant practice does not affect the overall intervention rate: a 6-year study
  10. Identifying high-risk subgroups for alcohol consumption among younger and older pregnant women
  11. Ultrasonographic severity scoring of non-immune hydrops: a predictor of perinatal mortality
  12. Controversial clinical practices for patients with preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome: a survey
  13. Inter- and intra-observer variability in cervical measurement by ultrasound in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy: does it matter?
  14. Personnel-itis: a myth or a pathology? A retrospective analysis of obstetrical and perinatal outcomes for physicians and nurses
  15. Placenta-secreted circulating markers in pregnant women with obstructive sleep apnea
  16. Variations of blood cells in prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus
  17. Peripartum cardiomyopathy – risk factors, characteristics and long-term follow-up
  18. Original article – Fetus
  19. Effect of assisted reproductive technology on fetal brain development assessed by prenatal ultrasonography
  20. Original article – Newborn
  21. Racial/ethnic differences in the birth prevalence of congenital anomalies in the United States
  22. Short Communication
  23. Postnatal kidney maturation regulates renal artery myogenic constriction
  24. Letters to the Editor
  25. Ebola viral infection in pregnancy: a plea for specific clinical recommendations
  26. Magnesium may provide further benefit to hypothermia following perinatal asphyxia encephalopathy
  27. Congress Calendar
  28. Congress Calendar
https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2014-0021
Keywords for this article
Caesarean; labour management; specialist obstetrician

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Academy’s Corner
  3. Maternal mortality: an ongoing challenge to perinatal medicine
  4. Fetal mild ventriculomegaly: still a challenging problem
  5. Review article
  6. Natural killer cell in the developing life
  7. Original articles – Obstetrics
  8. Clinical chorioamnionitis at term I: microbiology of the amniotic cavity using cultivation and molecular techniques
  9. Individual consultant practice does not affect the overall intervention rate: a 6-year study
  10. Identifying high-risk subgroups for alcohol consumption among younger and older pregnant women
  11. Ultrasonographic severity scoring of non-immune hydrops: a predictor of perinatal mortality
  12. Controversial clinical practices for patients with preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome: a survey
  13. Inter- and intra-observer variability in cervical measurement by ultrasound in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy: does it matter?
  14. Personnel-itis: a myth or a pathology? A retrospective analysis of obstetrical and perinatal outcomes for physicians and nurses
  15. Placenta-secreted circulating markers in pregnant women with obstructive sleep apnea
  16. Variations of blood cells in prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus
  17. Peripartum cardiomyopathy – risk factors, characteristics and long-term follow-up
  18. Original article – Fetus
  19. Effect of assisted reproductive technology on fetal brain development assessed by prenatal ultrasonography
  20. Original article – Newborn
  21. Racial/ethnic differences in the birth prevalence of congenital anomalies in the United States
  22. Short Communication
  23. Postnatal kidney maturation regulates renal artery myogenic constriction
  24. Letters to the Editor
  25. Ebola viral infection in pregnancy: a plea for specific clinical recommendations
  26. Magnesium may provide further benefit to hypothermia following perinatal asphyxia encephalopathy
  27. Congress Calendar
  28. Congress Calendar
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 27.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2014-0021/html
Scroll to top button