Search

Objective: In recent decades, there has been a call to foster effective collaborative models of practice between midwives and obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) in the United States in order to improve clinician satisfaction and outcomes for childbearing women. Currently, there is no existing validated scale that measures the collaboration between obstetricians and midwives on labor and birth units. We sought to develop and validate a Midwifery- Obstetrics Collaboration (MOC) Scale that measures obstetricians' attitudes towards collaboration between obstetricians and midwives on labor and birth units., Design: Validation study. The items in the questionnaire to be validated were developed de novo by the authors, based on their experiences and expertise in collaborative practice as well as by incorporating key principles of effective collaborative practice documented in the literature. The questionnaire was then piloted among 13 content experts., Setting: Anonymous online survey conducted in the United States., Participants: We validated the questionnaire among 471 obstetricians in the United States from Sept 2019 to March 2020. The respondents included general obstetrician and gynecologists (OB/GYN) attendings, OB/GYN hospitalists, maternal fetal medicine (MFM) fellows and MFM attendings who practice on a labor and birth unit in the United States., Measurements and Findings: We performed reliability analysis of the a priori items. We measured concurrent validity with an existing scale that measures inter-professional collaboration between nurses and physicians. We also correlated our scale with concerns for liability when working in a collaborative practice with midwives. Lastly, we measured discriminant validity with a single item burn out scale. The novel MOC Scale demonstrated construct and concurrent validity, and high inter-item reliability (a=0.93). The MOC Scale correlated with concerns about liability (r=0.63, p <0.001) but was not associated with burnout indicating the uniqueness of the new construct., Key Conclusions: The MOC Scale is validated to assess collaboration between obstetricians and midwives on labor and birth units from an obstetrician's perspective IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The MOC Scale can be used as a tool in clinical practice, to assess and foster effective collaboration between obstetricians and midwives from an obstetricians' perspective especially when used in conjunction with other tools that take into the account the perspectives of midwives and childbearing women., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: This study aims to examine hospital variation in both maternal and neonatal morbidities and identify institutional characteristics associated with hospital performance in a combined measure of maternal and neonatal outcomes., Methods: Using the California Linked Birth File containing data from birth certificate and hospital discharge records, we identified 1 322 713 term births delivered at 248 hospitals during 2010-2012. For each hospital, a risk-standardized rate of severe maternal morbidities and a risk-standardized rate of severe newborn morbidities were calculated after adjusting for patient clinical risk factors. Hospitals were ranked based on combined information on their maternal and newborn morbidity rates., Results: Risk-standardized severe maternal and severe newborn morbidity rates varied substantially across hospitals (10th to 90th percentile range = 67.5-148.2 and 141.8-508.0 per 10 000 term births, respectively), although there was no significant association between the two (P = 0.15). Government hospitals (non-Federal) were more likely than other hospitals to be in worse rank quartiles (P value for trend = 0.004), whereas larger volume was associated with better rank among hospitals in the first three quartiles (P = 0.004). The most prevalent morbidities that differed progressively across hospital rank quartiles were severe hemorrhage, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and heart failure during procedure/surgery for mothers, and severe infection, respiratory complication, and shock/resuscitation for neonates., Conclusions: Hospitals with low maternal morbidity rates may not have low neonatal morbidity rates and vice versa, highlighting the importance of assessing joint maternal-newborn outcomes in order to fully characterize a hospital's obstetrical performance. Hospitals with smaller volume and government ownership tend to have less desirable outcomes and warrant additional attention in future quality improvement efforts., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: To assess hospital practices in obstetric quality management activities and identify institutional characteristics associated with utilization of evidence-supported practices., Methods: Data for this study came from a statewide survey of obstetric hospitals in California regarding their organization and delivery of perinatal care. We analyzed responses from 185 hospitals that completed quality assurance sections of the survey to assess their practices in a broad spectrum of quality enhancement activities. The association between institutional characteristics and adoption of evidence-supported practices (ie, those supported by prior literature or recommended by professional organizations as beneficial for improving birth outcome or patient safety) was examined using bivariate analysis and appropriate statistical tests., Results: Most hospitals regularly audited adherence to written protocols regarding critical areas of care; however, 77.7% and 16.8% reported not having written guidelines on diagnosis of labor arrest and management of abnormal fetal heart rate, respectively. Private nonprofit hospitals were more likely to have a written protocol for management of abnormal fetal heart rate (P=.002). One in 10 hospitals (9.7%) did not regularly review cases with significant morbidity or mortality, and only 69.0% regularly tracked indications for cesarean delivery. Moreover, 26.3%, 14.3%, and 8.7% of the hospitals reported never performing interprofessional simulations for eclampsia, shoulder dystocia, or postpartum hemorrhage, respectively. Teaching status was associated with more frequent simulations in these three areas (P≤.04 for all), while larger volume was associated with more frequent simulations for eclampsia (P=.04)., Conclusion: Hospitals in California engage in a wide range of practices to assure or improve quality of obstetric care, but substantial variation in practice exists among hospitals. There is opportunity for improvement in adoption of evidence-supported practices.

Purpose: Several studies have documented a deficiency in the delivery of preventive services to adolescents during physician visits in the United States. This study sought to assess and compare pediatric, family medicine (FM), and obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) resident perceptions of their responsibility, training, and experience with providing comprehensive health care services to adolescents., Methods: A 57-item, close-ended survey was designed and administered to assess resident perceptions of the scope of their practice, training, and experience with providing adolescent health care across a series of health care categories., Results: Of the 87 respondents (31 OB/GYN, 29 FM, and 27 pediatric), most residents from all three fields felt that the full range of adolescent preventive and clinical services represented in the survey fell under their scope of practice. Residents from all three fields need more training and experience with mental health issues, referring teenagers to substance abuse treatment programs, and addressing physical and sexual abuse. In addition, OB-GYN residents reported deficiencies in training and experience regarding several preventive counseling and general health services, while pediatric residents reported deficiencies in training and experience regarding sexual health services., Conclusions: Our results indicate that at this time, residents from these three specialties are not optimally prepared to provide the full range of recommended preventive and clinical services to adolescents.