Evaluating the impact of a standardized induction protocol to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes: a prospective cohort study

References

• Thuzar M, Malabu UH, Tisdell B. Use of a standardised diabetic ketoacidosis management protocol improved clinical outcomes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;104(1):e8–e11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Patient Safety and Quality Improvement. Committee Opinion No. 680: the use and development of checklists in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5):e237–e240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725–2732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Patient Safety and Quality Improvement. Committee Opinion No. 629: clinical guidelines and standardization of practice to improve outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(4):1027–1029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick DH, Burkman RT. Does standardization of care through clinical guidelines improve outcomes and reduce medical liability? Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1022–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark S, Belfort M, Saade G, et al. Implementation of a conservative checklist-based protocol for oxytocin administration: maternal and newborn outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(5):480.e1–480.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark SL, Belfort MA, Byrum SL, et al. Improved outcomes, fewer cesarean deliveries, and reduced litigation: results of a new paradigm in patient safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(2):105.e1–105.e7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hehir MP, Mackie A, Robson MS. Simplified and standardized intrapartum management can yield high rates of successful VBAC in spontaneous labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(12):1504–1508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora KS, Shields LE, Grobman WA, et al. Triggers, bundles, protocols, and checklists – what every maternal care provider needs to know. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):444–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, et al. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1181–1193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Recent declines in induction of labor; 1 March, 2016. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db155.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Kernberg A, Caughey AB. Augmentation of labor: a review of oxytocin augmentation and active management of labor. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2017;44(4):593–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63(4):485–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Zeno JA, Peaceman AM, Adashek JA, et al. A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(7):450–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frigoletto FD, Jr., Lieberman E, Lang JM, et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(12):745–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peaceman AM, Socol ML. Active management of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(2):363–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhardstein LP, Allswede MT, Sloan CT, et al. Reduction in the rate of cesarean birth with active management of labor and intermediate-dose oxytocin. J Reprod Med. 1995;40(1):4–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Driscoll K, Meagher D, Boylan P. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(12):797; author reply 798; author reply 798–797; author reply 799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, et al. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1357–1364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology practice Bulletin. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. 2009. Reaffirmed 2014;101(February).
   Google Scholar
• Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin PC, Rothwell DM, Tu JV. A comparison of statistical modeling strategies for analyzing length of stay after CABG surgery. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2002;3(2):107–133.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, et al. Failed labor induction: toward an objective diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maghoma J, Buchmann EJ. Maternal and fetal risks associated with prolonged latent phase of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22(1):16–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simon CE, Grobman WA. When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):705–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sung JF, Daniels KI, Brodzinsky L, et al. Cesarean delivery outcomes after a prolonged second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(3):306.e1–306.e5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuuli MG, Liu L, Longman RE, et al. Infectious morbidity is higher after second-stage compared with first-stage cesareans. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(4):410.e1–410.e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asıcıoglu O, Güngördük K, Yildirim G, et al. Second-stage vs first-stage caesarean delivery: comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;34(7):598–604.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Belay T, Yusuf L, Negash S. A comparative study on first stage versus second stage caesarean section on maternal and perinatal outcome. Ethiop Med J. 2014;52(1):1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vitner D, Bleicher I, Levy E, et al. Differences in outcomes between cesarean section in the second versus the first stages of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(15):2539–2542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baicker K, Buckles KS, Chandra A. Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Health Aff. 2006;25(Suppl1):w355–w367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozhimannil KB, Arcaya MC, Subramanian SV. Maternal clinical diagnoses and hospital variation in the risk of cesarean delivery: analyses of a National US Hospital Discharge Database. PLOS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff. 2013;32(3):527–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar