首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>British Medical Journal >Should obstetricians see women with normal pregnancies? A multicentre randomised controlled trial of routine antenatal care by general practitioners and midwives compared with shared care led by obstetricians.
【2h】

Should obstetricians see women with normal pregnancies? A multicentre randomised controlled trial of routine antenatal care by general practitioners and midwives compared with shared care led by obstetricians.

机译:妇产科医生应该看孕妇正常的孕妇吗?全科医生和助产士进行常规产前护理的多中心随机对照试验而妇产科医生则进行了共享护理。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

OBJECTIVE--To compare routine antenatal care provided by general practitioners and midwives with obstetrician led shared care. DESIGN--Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING--51 general practices linked to nine Scottish maternity hospitals. SUBJECTS--1765 women at low risk of antenatal complications. INTERVENTION--Routine antenatal care by general practitioners and midwives according to a care plan and protocols for managing complications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Comparisons of health service use, indicators of quality of care, and women's satisfaction. RESULTS--Continuity of care was improved for the general practitioner and midwife group as the number of carers was less (median 5 carers v 7 for shared care group, P<0.0001) and the number of routine visits reduced (10.9 v 11.7, P<0.0001). Fewer women in the general practitioner and midwife group had antenatal admissions (27% (222/834) v 32% (266/840), P<0.05), non-attendances (7% (57) v 11% (89), P<0.01) and daycare (12% (102) v 7% (139), P<0.05) but more were referred (49% (406) v 36% (305), P<0.0001). Rates of antenatal diagnoses did not differ except that fewer women in the general practitioner and midwife group had hypertensive disorders (pregnancy induced hypertension, 5% (37) v 8% (70), P<0.01) and fewer had labour induced (18% (149) v 24% (201), P<0.01). Few failures to comply with the care protocol occurred, but more Rhesus negative women in the general practitioner and midwife group did not have an appropriate antibody check (2.5% (20) v 0.4% (3), P<0.0001). Both groups expressed high satisfaction with care (68% (453/663) v 65% (430/656), P=0.5) and acceptability of allocated style of care (93% (618) v 94% (624), P=0.6). Access to hospital support before labour was similar (45% (302) v 48% (312) visited labour rooms before giving birth, P=0.6). CONCLUSION--Routine specialist visits for women initially at low risk of pregnancy complications offer little or no clinical or consumer benefit.
机译:目的-将全科医生和助产士提供的常规产前护理与产科医生领导的共享护理进行比较。设计-多中心随机对照试验。地点-与9家苏格兰妇产医院相关的51种常规做法。主题--1765妇女的产前并发症风险较低。干预措施-全科医生和助产士按照护理并发症的护理计划和方案进行常规产前护理。主要观察指标-保健服务使用,护理质量指标和妇女满意度的比较。结果-全科医生和助产士组的护理连续性得到了改善,因为护理人员的数量减少了(共享护理组的中位护理人员为5名,v 7),P <0.0001),例行就诊次数减少了(10.9 v 11.7,P <0.0001)。全科医生和助产士组中产前入院的妇女较少(27%(222/834)对32%(266/840),P <0.05),未就诊(7%(57)对11%(89), P <0.01)和日托(12%(102)v 7%(139),P <0.05),但转介更多(49%(406)v 36%(305),P <0.0001)。产前诊断的比率没有差异,只是全科医生和助产士组中患有高血压疾病的妇女较少(妊娠高血压,5%(37)v 8%(70),P <0.01),而劳动分娩的较少(18%)。 (149)v 24%(201),P <0.01)。很少发生未能遵守护理规程的情况,但是全科医生和助产士组中更多的恒河猴阴性女性没有进行适当的抗体检查(2.5%(20)对0.4%(3),P <0.0001)。两组均表示对护理的高度满意(68%(453/663)对65%(430/656),P = 0.5)和接受的护理方式的接受度(93%(618)对94%(624),P = 0.6)。分娩前获得医院支持的情况相似(45%(302)对48%(312)在分娩前访问分娩室,P = 0.6)。结论-最初对妊娠并发症风险低的女性进行常规的专科就诊几乎没有或没有临床或消费者益处。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号