Enhancing recognition of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in six maternity units in Palestine: an interventional quality improvement study
- PMID: 29921684
- PMCID: PMC6009514
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020983
Enhancing recognition of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in six maternity units in Palestine: an interventional quality improvement study
Abstract
Objective: To explore the impact of a training intervention on obstetric anal sphincter injuries' (OASIS) detection rate.
Design: Prospective quality improvement interventional study.
Setting: Six secondary and tertiary maternity units in Palestine.
Population: Women having singleton vaginal births ≥23 weeks' gestation or babies weighing ≥500 g (n=22 922). Caesarean births (n=5431), multiple gestations (n=443) and vaginal births of unregistered perineum status (n=800) were excluded.
Interventions: Training programme for enhancing OASIS detection was conducted between 31 January and 31 December 2015. International experts delivered 2-day standardisation workshop teaching OASIS diagnosis and repair to each maternity unit. They also provided additional training to three research fellows employed in three of the maternity units. This was followed by 13-week period of data collection (phase 1). Research fellows then delivered training intervention over 15-week interval (phase 2), including theoretical teaching and 'onsite' training in perineal trauma assessment within the six maternity units. Finally, 13-week postintervention observation (phase 3) followed.
Primary outcome measure: OASIS rates were used as surrogate for OASIS recognition. OASIS rates were compared between different phases and between the two maternity unit groups (research fellow and non-research fellow based) using Pearson's χ² test.
Results: A total 22 922 women were included. Among primiparous women, OASIS rate was higher in phase 2 (2.8%, p<0.001) and phase 3 (3.1%, p<0.001) than phase 1 (0.5%). However, no significant differences were detected in the rates of severe OASIS (third-degree 3c and fourth-degree tears) between phase 1 and 2 (0.5% vs 0.3%), because this would have required at least 103 women with severe OASIS to be included in each phase. Among parous women, OASIS rate was significantly higher in phase 2 (0.6%, p=0.002) but not in phase 3 (0.4%, p=0.071) compared with phase 1 (0.2%). Research fellows' maternity units showed higher OASIS rates among primiparous women in phase 2 (3.6% vs 1.4%, p=0.001) and phase 3 (4.3% vs 0.8%, p<0.001) than non-research fellows' maternity units.
Conclusions: This work is basically an epidemiological study which has identified the prevalence of perineal lacerations and their severity on a large sample of women representative of an entire geographical ethnic region. The quality improvement intervention improved OASIS detection mainly in the research fellows' maternity units. Regular mandatory national programmes in obstetric perineal trauma assessment and management by local champions are essential to mitigate the risk of missing significant degrees of trauma.
Keywords: obstetrics; urogynaecology.
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Impact of electronic and blended learning programs for manual perineal support on incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a prospective interventional study.BMC Med Educ. 2018 Nov 12;18(1):258. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1363-3. BMC Med Educ. 2018. PMID: 30419884 Free PMC article.
-
Implementation of the RCOG guidelines for prevention of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) at two London Hospitals: A time series analysis.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 May;224:89-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.03.021. Epub 2018 Mar 15. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018. PMID: 29571123
-
Reducing obstetric anal sphincter injuries using perineal support: our preliminary experience.Int Urogynecol J. 2017 Mar;28(3):381-389. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3176-4. Epub 2016 Oct 19. Int Urogynecol J. 2017. PMID: 27761586
-
[Definition, epidemiology and risk factors of obstetric anal sphincter injuries: CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines].Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec;46(12):913-921. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.028. Epub 2018 Oct 29. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018. PMID: 30385355 Review. French.
-
Obstetric anal sphincter injuries - review of our date between 2015-2017.Ceska Gynekol. 2019 Winter;84(1):18-22. Ceska Gynekol. 2019. PMID: 31213053 Review. English.
Cited by
-
Effectiveness of education and training programmes to help clinicians assess and classify perineal tears: a systematic review.BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 25;15(6):e095961. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095961. BMJ Open. 2025. PMID: 40562549 Free PMC article.
-
Under-classified obstetric anal sphincter injuries.Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Jun;33(6):1473-1479. doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-05051-y. Epub 2022 Feb 12. Int Urogynecol J. 2022. PMID: 35150290
-
Diagnosis, management and training in perineal trauma: a UK national survey of obstetricians.Int Urogynecol J. 2023 Dec;34(12):2873-2883. doi: 10.1007/s00192-023-05590-6. Epub 2023 Jul 27. Int Urogynecol J. 2023. PMID: 37498432 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of electronic and blended learning programs for manual perineal support on incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a prospective interventional study.BMC Med Educ. 2018 Nov 12;18(1):258. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1363-3. BMC Med Educ. 2018. PMID: 30419884 Free PMC article.
-
Time trends in episiotomy and severe perineal tears in Portugal: a nationwide register-based study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Dec 28;22(1):976. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-05314-6. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. PMID: 36577964 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical