Use of induction of labour and emergency caesarean section and perinatal outcomes in English maternity services: a national hospital-level study.
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 35445784.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.17193 and PMC identifier 9543153.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
To assess the association between hospital-level rates of induction of labour and emergency caesarean section, as measures of "practice style", and rates of adverse perinatal outcomes. National study using electronic maternity records. English National Health Service. Hospitals providing maternity care to women between April 2015 and March 2017. Stillbirth, admission to a neonatal unit, and babies receiving mechanical ventilation. Among singleton term births, the risk of stillbirth was 0.15%; of admission to a neonatal unit 5.4%; and of mechanical ventilation 0.54%. There was considerable between-hospital variation in the induction of labour rate (minimum 17.5%, maximum 40.7%) and the emergency caesarean section rate (minimum 5.6%, maximum 17.1%). Women who gave birth in hospitals with a higher induction of labour rate had better perinatal outcomes. For each 5%-point increase in induction, there was a decrease in the risk of term stillbirth by 9% (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97) and mechanical ventilation by 14% (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94). There was no significant association between hospital-level induction of labour rates and neonatal unit admission at term (p>0.05). There was no significant association between hospital-level emergency caesarean section rates and adverse perinatal outcomes (p always >0.05). There is considerable between-hospital variation in the use of induction of labour and emergency caesarean section. Hospitals with a higher induction rate had a lower risk of adverse birth outcomes. A similar association was not found for caesarean section.