Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Delivery volume debated

Michael C. Klein
CMAJ October 01, 2002 167 (7) 741-742;
Michael C. Klein
Head, Division of Maternity and Newborn Care, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Dan Dattani makes an important point regarding who scrutinizes the establishment of clinical practice guidelines. We are therefore pleased that the SOGC has joined the CFPC and the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada (SRPC) in developing a new policy statement on the number of births required to maintain competence. Since more than half of family physicians in both rural and urban settings attend fewer than 25 births per year, the previous guideline, if implemented (as it was by some governing authorities), could decimate maternity care in Canada.

T.B. MacLachlan is correct in saying that our results from a well-resourced teaching hospital ought not to be generalized to rural Canada. We made that point strongly ourselves.1 We acknowledged that our study had internal but not necessarily external validity. However, there are settings in rural Canada and elsewhere that have fewer than 25 births per year and good birth outcomes.2,3,4 We are now working with colleagues in small-volume settings to continue to study these relations.

We do not agree with MacLachlan's final point. It is not appropriate for the SOGC to be prescribing standards for settings where obstetricians do not practise. The SOGC felt comfortable in rescinding the previous guideline, based on our work and the work of others as well as our joint position paper on rural maternity care.5 This kind of partnership between our 3 organizations is a positive for the women and families of Canada.

Although statistically correct, Lindbloom and LeFevre's critique has focused only on our multivariate tables. We also reported unadjusted outcomes. They revealed 5-minute Apgar scores of less than 7 for low- versus high-volume family physicians (4.0% v. 3.7%) and NICU/SCU admissions of 11.6% versus 11.3%. Regarding procedures, the rates for episiotomy were 22.7% versus 19.1%, for instrumental deliveries 14.4% versus 13.3% and for cesarean sections 17.5% versus 16.3%. We find it difficult to believe that these minimal differences are clinically important, and it is unlikely that more study power would materially change the results in either of our reported formats.

Moreover, low-volume family physicians are a heterogeneous group made up of people with various career backgrounds. This also overshadows the minimal differences. Certainly, policy decisions ought not to be made on the basis of such differences. More important, if policy decisions were made, as they have been, on the unsupported belief that low volume is a problem, the denial of access to maternity care to large numbers of urban and rural women would lead to genuine adverse outcomes.

We do agree that more data on low-volume deliveries would be desirable. Thus we will pool data from urban, rural and remote settings to examine infrequently occurring events. And we are pleased to draw attention to a recent publication based on all births in Alberta, also showing low-volume maternity care to be a non-issue.6

Michael C. Klein Head, Division of Maternity and Newborn Care University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC

References

  1. 1.↵
    Klein MC, Spence A, Kaczorowski K, Kelly A, Grzybowski S. Does delivery volume of family physicians predict maternal and newborn outcomes? CMAJ 2002;166(10):1257-63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Black DP, Fyfe IM. The safety of obstetric services in small communities in northern Ontario. CMAJ 1984;130:571-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  3. 3.↵
    Rosenblatt RA, Reinken J, Shoemack P. Is obstetrics safe in small hospitals? Evidence from New Zealand's regionalized perinatal system. Lancet 1985;2(8452):429-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Nesbitt TS, Connell FA, Hart LG, Rosenblatt RA. Access to obstetric care in rural areas:effect on birth outcomes. Am J Public Health 1990;80 (7): 814-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Iglesias S, Grzybowski S, Klein MC, Gagné GP, Lalonde A. Rural obstetrics. Joint position paper on rural maternity care. Joint Working Group of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada (SRPC), The Maternity Care Committee of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC), and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC). Can Fam Physician 1998; 44:831-43.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Johnson D, Jin Y. Low-volume obstetrics: characteristics of family physicians' practices in Alberta. Can Fam Physician 2002;48:1208-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 167, Issue 7
1 Oct 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Delivery volume debated
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Delivery volume debated
Michael C. Klein
CMAJ Oct 2002, 167 (7) 741-742;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Delivery volume debated
Michael C. Klein
CMAJ Oct 2002, 167 (7) 741-742;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Highlighting obesity as a risk factor for endometrial cancer
  • Hepatitis B vaccination for Canadian children: time for an adult conversation
  • Codesigning a public health approach to preventing firearm-related suicide deaths with rural communities
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Obstetrics & gynecology
    • Neonatal medicine

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. 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 or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire