Attitudes of the new generation of Canadian obstetricians: how do they differ from their predecessors?

BACKGROUND: Attitudes drive practice, perhaps more than evidence. The objective of this study was to determine if the new generation of Canadian obstetricians has attitudes differing from those of their predecessors. METHODS: Employing a cross-sectional, Internet, and paper-based survey, we conducted an in-depth study of obstetricians responding to the Canadian National Maternity Care Attitudes Survey. RESULTS: Of the 800 Canadian obstetricians providing intrapartum care, 549 (68.6%) responded. Participants were stratified by age less than or equal to 40 years compared with those over 40 years; 81 percent of those 40 years or younger were women versus 40 percent over 40 years of age. Younger obstetricians were significantly more likely to favor use of routine epidural analgesia and believed that it did not interfere with labor or lead to instrumentation; were more concerned and feared the perineal and pelvic floor consequences of vaginal birth compared with cesarean section; and were significantly less supportive of vaginal birth after prior cesarean section, home birth, birth plans, routine episiotomy, and routine electronic fetal monitoring as providing maternal or fetal benefits. They were less positive than the older generation about a range of approaches to reducing the cesarean section rate, the importance of maternal choice and role in their own birth, and peer review, and they were more likely to believe that women having a cesarean section were not missing an important experience. No significant generational differences were found for ambivalent attitudes to vaginal breech birth. CONCLUSIONS: Younger obstetricians were more evidence-based for some issues and less for others. In general younger obstetricians were more supportive of the role of birth technology in normal birth, including routine epidural analgesia, and they were less appreciative of the role of women in their own birth. They saw cesarean section as a solution to many perceived labor and birth problems. Results suggest a need to examine how obstetricians acquire their favorable attitudes to birth technology in normal birth.

Birth technology and maternal roles in birth: knowledge and attitudes of canadian women approaching childbirth for the first time.

OBJECTIVE: To describe Canadian nulliparous women's attitudes to birth technology and their roles in childbirth. METHODS: A large convenience sample of low-risk women expecting their first birth was recruited by posters in laboratories, at the offices of obstetricians, family physicians, and midwives, at prenatal classes, and through web-based advertising and invited to complete a paper or web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 1318 women completing the questionnaire, 95% did so via the web-based method; 13.2% of respondents were in the first trimester, 39.8% were in the second trimester, and 47.0% in the third. Overall, 42.6% were under the care of an obstetrician, 29.3% a family physician, and 28.1% a registered midwife. The sample included mainly well-educated, middle-class women. The planned place of giving birth ranged from home to hospital, and from rural centres to large city hospitals. Eighteen percent planned to engage a doula. Women attending obstetricians reported attitudes more favourable to the use of birth technology and less supportive of women's roles in their own delivery, regardless of the trimester in which the survey was completed. Those women attending midwives reported attitudes less favourable to the use of technology at delivery and more supportive of women's roles. Family practice patients' opinions fell between the other two groups. For eight of the questions, "I don't know" (IDK) responses exceeded 15%. These IDK responses were most frequent for questions regarding risks and benefits of epidural analgesia, Caesarean section, and episiotomy. Women in the care of midwives consistently used IDK options less frequently than those cared for by physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the type of care provider they attended, many women reported uncertainty about the benefits and risks of common procedures used at childbirth. When grouped by the type of care provider, in all trimesters, women held different views across a range of childbirth issues, suggesting that the three groups of providers were caring for different populations with different attitudes and expectations.

Family physicians who provide intrapartum care and those who do not: very different ways of viewing childbirth.

OBJECTIVE: To examine FPs' attitudes toward birth for those providing intrapartum care (IPC) and those providing only antepartum care (APC). DESIGN: National, cross-sectional Web- and paper-based survey. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 897 Canadian FPs: 503 providing both IPC and APC (FPIs), 252 providing only APC but who previously provided IPC (FPPs), and 142 providing only APC who never provided IPC (FPNs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents' views (measured on a 5-point Likert scale) on routine electronic fetal monitoring, epidural analgesia, routine episiotomy, doulas, pelvic floor benefits of cesarean section, approaches to reducing cesarean section rates, maternal choice and the mother's role in her own child's birth, care providers' fears of vaginal birth for themselves or their partners, and safety by mode or place of birth. RESULTS: Results showed that FPIs and FPPs were more likely than FPNs were to take additional training or advanced life support courses. The FPIs consistently demonstrated more positive attitudes toward vaginal birth than did the other 2 groups. The FPPs and FPNs showed significantly more agreement with use of routine electronic fetal monitoring and routine epidural analgesia (P < .001). The FPIs displayed significantly more acceptance of doulas (P < .001) and more disagreement with the pelvic floor benefits of cesarean section than other FPs did (P < .001). The FPIs were significantly less fearful of vaginal birth for themselves or their partners than were FPPs and FPNs (P < .001). All FP groups agreed on rejection of elective cesarean section, in the absence of indications, for themselves or their partners and on support for vaginal birth in the presence of uterine scar. While all FP groups supported licensed midwifery, three-quarters thought home birth was more dangerous than hospital birth and showed ambivalence toward birth plans. Only 7.8% of FPIs would choose obstetricians for their own or their partners' maternity care. CONCLUSION: The FPIs had a more positive, evidence-based view of birth. It is likely that FPs providing only APC are influencing women in their practices toward a relatively negative view of birth before referral to obstetricians, FPIs, or midwives for the actual birth. The relatively negative views of birth held by FPs providing only APC need to be addressed in family practice education and in continuing education.

The attitudes of Canadian maternity care practitioners towards labour and birth: many differences but important similarities.

OBJECTIVE: Collaborative, interdisciplinary care models have the potential to improve maternity care. Differing attitudes of maternity care providers may impede this process. We sought to examine the attitudes of Canadian maternity care practitioners towards labour and birth. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional web- and paper-based survey of 549 obstetricians, 897 family physicians (400 antepartum only, 497 intrapartum), 545 nurses, 400 midwives, and 192 doulas. RESULTS: Participants responded to 43 Likert-type attitudinal questions. Nine themes were identified: electronic fetal monitoring, epidural analgesia, episiotomy, doula roles, Caesarean section benefits, factors decreasing Caesarean section rates, maternal choice, fear of vaginal birth, and safety of birth mode and place. Obstetrician scores reflected positive attitudes towards use of technology, in contrast to midwives' and doulas' scores. Family physicians providing only antenatal care had attitudinal scores similar to obstetricians; family physicians practising intrapartum care and nurses had intermediate scores on technology. Obstetricians' scores indicated that they had the least positive attitudes towards home birth, women's roles in their own births, and doula care, and they were the most concerned about the consequences of vaginal birth. Midwives' and doulas' scores reflected opposing views on these issues. Although 71% of obstetricians supported regulated midwifery, 88.9% were against home birth. Substantial numbers of each group held attitudes similar to dominant attitudes from other disciplines. CONCLUSION: To develop effective team practice, efforts to reconcile differing attitudes towards labour and birth are needed. However, the overlap in attitudes between disciplines holds promise for a basis upon which to begin shared problem solving and collaboration.

Multipronged strategy to reduce routine-priority blood testing in intensive care unit patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to reduce unnecessary ordering of routine-priority blood tests. METHODS: In this before-after study, we studied all patients admitted to a 15-bed tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) from July 1, 2011, to June 27, 2013. Based on input from intensivists, acceptable indications for ordering routine-priority complete blood counts (CBCs) and electrolyte/renal panels were developed. Sequential interventions were (1) education sessions for ICU housestaff about the lack of evidence for routine-priority blood tests; (2) an item on the ICU rounds checklist to ask if routine-priority blood tests were indicated; (3) a rubber stamp, "routine bloodwork NOT indicated for tomorrow," was used in the chart; (4) a prompt in the electronic ordering system to allow only accepted indications; and (5) a second educational session for ICU housestaff. We measured numbers of tests done before and after these interventions. RESULTS: After introduction of interventions, there were 0.14 fewer routine-priority CBCs and 0.13 fewer routine-priority electrolyte/renal panels done per patient-day. Nonroutine CBCs and nonroutine electrolyte/renal panels increased by 0.03 and 0.02 tests per patient-day, respectively. This overall reduction in tests equates to an adjusted savings of $11,200.24 over 1 year in 1 ICU. There were no differences in demographics, severity of illness, length of stay, or number of red cell transfusions between the 2 periods. CONCLUSION: Sequential interventions to discourage the ordering of routine-priority blood tests in an ICU were associated with a significant decrease in the number of tests ordered.