HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services 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 Rosenblatt, R A Articles by Perrin, E B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rosenblatt, R A Articles by Perrin, E B

Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women.

R A Rosenblatt, S A Dobie, L G Hart, R Schneeweiss, D Gould, T R Raine, T J Benedetti, M J Pirani and E B Perrin

Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle 98195-4795, USA.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined differences among obstetricians, family physicians, and certified nurse-midwives in the patterns of obstetric care provided to low-risk patients. METHODS: For a random sample of Washington State obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and certified nurse-midwives, records of a random sample of their low-risk patients beginning care between September 1, 1988, and August 31, 1989, were abstracted. RESULTS: Certified nurse-midwives were less likely to use continuous electronic fetal monitoring and had lower rates of labor induction or augmentation than physicians. Certified nurse-midwives also were less likely than physicians to use epidural anesthesia. The cesarean section rate for patients of certified nurse-midwives was 8.8% vs 13.6% for obstetricians and 15.1% for family physicians. Certified nurse-midwives used 12.2% fewer resources. There was little difference between the practice patterns of obstetricians and family physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The low-risk patients of certified nurse-midwives in Washington State received fewer obstetrical interventions than similar patients cared for by obstetrician-gynecologists or family physicians. These differences are associated with lower cesarean section rates and less resource use.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. N. Lutfiyya, D. K. Bhat, S. R. Gandhi, C. Nguyen, V. L. Weidenbacher-Hoper, and M. S. Lipsky A comparison of quality of care indicators in urban acute care hospitals and rural critical access hospitals in the United States Int. J. Qual. Health Care, June 1, 2007; 19(3): 141 - 149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Regan and J. Liaschenko In the Mind of the Beholder: Hypothesized Effect of Intrapartum Nurses' Cognitive Frames of Childbirth Cesarean Section Rates Qual Health Res, May 1, 2007; 17(5): 612 - 624. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. P. Kennedy The Midwife as an "Instrument" of Care Am J Public Health, November 1, 2002; 92(11): 1759 - 1760. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D A Webb and J Culhane Time of day variation in rates of obstetric intervention to assist in vaginal delivery J Epidemiol Community Health, August 1, 2002; 56(8): 577 - 578. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. C. Klein, A. Spence, J. Kaczorowski, A. Kelly, and S. Grzybowski Does delivery volume of family physicians predict maternal and newborn outcome? Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 1, 2002; 166(10): 1257 - 1263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Berman, T. R. B. Johnson, B. S. Apgar, and T. L. Schwenk MODEL OF FAMILY MEDICINE AND OBSTETRICS-GYNECOLOGY COLLABORATION IN OBSTETRIC CARE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Obstet. Gynecol., August 1, 2000; 96(2): 308 - 313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]