Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients' own obstetricians.
BACKGROUND
The question "will you be delivering my baby?" is one that pregnant women frequently ask their physicians. We sought to determine whether obstetric outcomes differed between women whose babies were delivered by their own obstetrician (regular-care obstetrician) and those attended by an on-call obstetrician who did not provide antenatal care.


METHODS
We performed a cohort study of all live singleton term births between 1991 and 2001 at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montréal. We excluded breech deliveries, elective cesarean sections and deliveries with placenta previa or prolapse of the umbilical cord. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare obstetric outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery and episiotomy) between the regular-care and on-call obstetricians after adjustment for potential confounders.


RESULTS
A total of 28,332 eligible deliveries were attended by 26 obstetricians: 21,779 (76.9%) by the patient's own obstetrician and 6553 (23.1%) by the on-call obstetrician. Compared with women attended by their regular-care obstetrician, those attended by an on-call obstetrician had higher rates of cesarean delivery (11.9% v. 11.4%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, p < 0.01) and of third-or fourth-degree tears (7.9% v. 6.4%, adjusted OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07-1.36, p < 0.01) but lower rates of episiotomy (38.5% v. 42.9%, OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82, p < 0.001). No differences were observed between the groups in the rate of instrumental vaginal delivery. The increase in the overall rate of cesarean delivery among women attended by an on-call obstetrician was due mainly to an increase in cesarean deliveries during the first stage of labour because of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing (2.9% v. 1.7%, adjusted OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.49-2.15, p < 0.001). The time of day of delivery did not modify the observed effects.


CONCLUSIONS
The type of attending obstetrician (regular care v. on call) had a minor effect on obstetric outcomes.
Abenhaim
Haim A
HA
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Que. haim.abenhaim@gmail.com
Benjamin
Alice
A
Koby
Robert D
RD
Kinch
Robert A
RA
Kramer
Michael S
MS
D002585:Cesarean Section; D036861:Delivery, Obstetric; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D009774:Obstetrics; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011247:Pregnancy; D011295:Prenatal Care; D011787:Quality of Health Care
J Surg Res. 2004 Dec;122(2):162-6
15555613
Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2004;17(7):394-400
15552395
Laryngoscope. 2005 Jan;115(1):143-6
15630383
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2004;31(4):289-92
15672970
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2005 Mar;19(1):1-16
15679055
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Apr;105(4):751-6
15802401
Conn Med. 2005 Mar;69(3):139-41
15861999
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 May;105(5 Pt 1):1031-8
15863541
JAMA. 2005 May 4;293(17):2141-8
15870418
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;192(6):1820-6; discussion 1826-8
15970818
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;106(1):151-5
15994631
J Clin Anesth. 2004 Sep;16(6):411-4
15567643
Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Apr;95(4):616-8
10725500
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000081
10796120
J Perinat Med. 2000;28(2):111-7
10875095
Am J Med Sci. 2002 Oct;324(4):212-9
12385494
J Reprod Med. 2004 Mar;49(3):143-7
15098882
Inquiry. 2004 Summer;41(2):170-88
15449432
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004 Aug;16(2):115-8
15512722
N Engl J Med. 1986 Sep 4;315(10):619-24
3736601
Invest Radiol. 1993 Jan;28(1):92-6
8425860
J Reprod Med. 1995 Feb;40(2):101-6
7738918
N Engl J Med. 1995 Oct 12;333(15):953-7
7666913
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Sep;177(3):599-605
9322630
J Health Econ. 1999 Aug;18(4):491-522
10539619