Psychometric Properties of the Resilience Scale in Older Adults Post-Hip Fracture.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the modified 25-item Resilience Scale (RS-25) in older adults post-hip fracture using Rasch analysis. Methods: This was a descriptive study using baseline data from the Seventh Baltimore Hip Studies (BHS-7). There were 339 hip fracture patients included in this analysis. Results: Findings suggest there was support for reliability of the measure based on person and item separation index. The INFIT and OUTFIT statistics for testing validity were all in the acceptable range indicating that each item on the modified RS-25 fits the appropriate concept. There was no evidence of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) between genders. Conclusions: This study demonstrated evidence that the modified RS-25 is a reliable and valid measure to evaluate resilience among older adults post-hip fracture and therefore can be used in this population in clinical practice and research.

Promoting active labor admission: Early labor lounge implementation barriers and facilitators from the clinician perspective.

BACKGROUND: The cesarean birth rate for low-risk pregnant individuals in the United States exceeds the recommended Healthy People 2020 rate. One recommended strategy to reduce cesarean in this population is delaying hospital admission until active labor commences. A quality improvement program was implemented at a community hospital using the early labor lounge (ELL) to promote admission in active labor. This study focuses on identifying the barriers and facilitators from the clinician perspective to implementing the ELL. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of clinicians. Interview transcripts were open coded and themes identified inductively. A framework analysis was then conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Twenty-five staff members participated. Barriers and facilitators were identified in four of the CFIR domains. Facilitators included the strength of the evidence and the ELL itself, including the tools it contained for supporting women in latent labor. Barriers to implementation included clinician self-efficacy and perceived low usage of the ELL. CONCLUSION: This analysis using, CFIR identified several barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the ELL. The context of the individual woman presenting in triage and the acceptability and self-efficacy of the individual clinicians represented important factors for implementation.

Associations among cervical dilatation at admission, intrapartum care, and birth mode in low-risk, nulliparous women.

BACKGROUND: Admission in early labor is associated with increased likelihood of cesarean birth, but the context in which this occurs is unclear. Previous research has explored the relationship between dilatation at admission and the use of single intrapartum interventions; however, the majority of women in the United States receive multiple intrapartum interventions. The objective of this study was to examine the associations among cervical dilatation at admission, intrapartum care, and birth mode in low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous onset of labor. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational study of 21 858 nulliparous, singleton, term vertex births that occurred from 2002 to 2007 across nine hospitals in the Consortium on Safe Labor. Outcome measures included the individual and combined use of intrapartum interventions (amniotomy, epidural anesthesia, oxytocin augmentation) and birth mode. RESULTS: In this sample, 92.0% of women received at least one intrapartum intervention and 22.7% received all three interventions. After propensity score adjustment, women were more than twice as likely to receive the combination of amniotomy-epidural-oxytocin when admitted at 0-3 cm (RR 2.83 [95% CI 2.45-3.27]) and 4-5 cm (2.49 [2.15-2.89]) compared to 6-10 cm. Adjusted likelihood of cesarean birth was five times greater for women admitted at 0-3 cm (5.26 [4.36-6.34]) and two times greater for women admitted at 4-5 cm (2.27 [1.86-2.77]) compared to 6-10 cm. CONCLUSIONS: To promote normal physiologic birth, low-risk, nulliparous women should be engaged in shared decision-making about timing of admission after spontaneous onset of labor.

Midwifery presence in United States medical centers and labor care and birth outcomes among low-risk nulliparous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study.

BACKGROUND: The presence of midwives in a health system may affect perinatal outcomes but has been inadequately described in United States settings. Our objective was to compare labor processes and outcomes for low-risk nulliparous women birthing in United States medical centers with interprofessional care (midwives and physicians) versus noninterprofessional care (physicians only). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk nulliparous women who birthed in interprofessional (n = 7393) or noninterprofessional centers (n = 6982). Unadjusted, adjusted (age, race, health insurance type), propensity-adjusted, and propensity-matched logistic regression models were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: There was concordance across logistic regression models, the most restrictive and conservative of which were propensity-matched models. With this approach, women at interprofessional medical centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 74% less likely to undergo labor induction (risk ratio [RR] 0.26; 95% CI 0.24-0.29) and 75% less likely to have oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.22-0.29). The cesarean birth rate was 12% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in only 0.3% of births and were thus too rare to be modeled. CONCLUSIONS: The care processes and birth outcomes at interprofessional and noninterprofessional medical centers differed significantly. Nulliparous women receiving care at interprofessional centers were less likely to experience induction, oxytocin augmentation, and cesarean than women at noninterprofessional centers. Labor care and birth outcome differences between interprofessional and noninterprofessional centers may be the result of the presence of midwives and interprofessional collaboration, organizational culture, or both.

Influence of midwifery presence in United States centers on labor care and outcomes of low-risk parous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study.

BACKGROUND: Sixty percent of United States births are to multiparous women. Hospital-level policies and culture may influence intrapartum care and birth outcomes for this large population, yet have been poorly explored using a large, diverse sample. We sought to use national United States data to analyze the association between midwifery presence in maternity care teams and the birth processes and outcomes of low-risk parous women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk parous women in either interprofessional care (n = 12 125) or noninterprofessional care centers (n = 8996). Unadjusted, adjusted (age, race, health insurance type), propensity-adjusted, and propensity-matched logistic regression models were used to assess processes and outcomes. RESULTS: There was concordance in outcome differences across regression models. With propensity score matching, women at interprofessional centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 85% less likely to have labor induced (risk ratio [RR] 0.15; 95% CI 0.14-0.17). The risk for primary cesarean birth among low-risk parous women was 36% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.64; 95% CI 00.52-0.79), whereas the likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean for this population was 31% higher (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10-1.56). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Parous women have significantly higher rates of vaginal birth, including vaginal birth after cesarean, and lower likelihood of labor induction when cared for in centers with midwives. Our findings are consistent with smaller analyses of midwifery practice and support integrated, team-based models of perinatal care to improve maternal outcomes.