Advertisement
ADVANCED SEARCH

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Résumé Online Appendices Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abenhaim, H. A. Articles by Kramer, M. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Abenhaim, H. A., MD MPH Articles by Kramer, M. S., MD Related Collections Other obstetrics & gynecology Français Related Articles

Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients' own obstetricians

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Abenhaim, Benjamin, Koby, Kinch), Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University; and the Departments of Pediatrics, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Kramer), McGill University, Montréal, Que.

Correspondence to: Dr. Haim A. Abenhaim, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital Sainte-Justine, 3175 chemin de la Côte Sainte-Catherine, Montréal QC H3T 1C5; fax 514 345-4648; haim.abenhaim{at}gmail.com

Background: The question "will you be delivering my baby?" is one that pregnant women frequently ask their physicians. We sought to determine whether obstetric outcomes differed between women whose babies were delivered by their own obstetrician (regular-care obstetrician) and those attended by an on-call obstetrician who did not provide antenatal care.

Methods: We performed a cohort study of all live singleton term births between 1991 and 2001 at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montréal. We excluded breech deliveries, elective cesarean sections and deliveries with placenta previa or prolapse of the umbilical cord. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare obstetric outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery and episiotomy) between the regular-care and on-call obstetricians after adjustment for potential confounders.

Results: A total of 28 332 eligible deliveries were attended by 26 obstetricians: 21 779 (76.9%) by the patient's own obstetrician and 6553 (23.1%) by the on-call obstetrician. Compared with women attended by their regular-care obstetrician, those attended by an on-call obstetrician had higher rates of cesarean delivery (11.9% v. 11.4%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–1.24, p < 0.01) and of third-or fourth-degree tears (7.9% v. 6.4%, adjusted OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07–1.36, p < 0.01) but lower rates of episiotomy (38.5% v. 42.9%, OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72–0.82, p < 0.001). No differences were observed between the groups in the rate of instrumental vaginal delivery. The increase in the overall rate of cesarean delivery among women attended by an on-call obstetrician was due mainly to an increase in cesarean deliveries during the first stage of labour because of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing (2.9% v. 1.7%, adjusted OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.49–2.15, p < 0.001). The time of day of delivery did not modify the observed effects.

Interpretation: The type of attending obstetrician (regular care v. on call) had a minor effect on obstetric outcomes.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. M. Bell MD PhD and J. G. Ray MD MSc "You're not my obstetrician" (and it may not matter) Can. Med. Assoc. J., August 14, 2007; 177(4): 372 - 373. [Full Text] [PDF]

HOME	CURRENT ISSUE	PAST ISSUES	COLLECTIONS	HELP	SEARCH
Copyright 1995-2007, Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p) All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.