Obstetric anesthesia work force survey, 1981 versus 1992
- PMID: 9232144
- DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199707000-00018
Obstetric anesthesia work force survey, 1981 versus 1992
Abstract
Background: In 1981, with support from the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, anesthesia and obstetric providers were surveyed to identify the personnel and methods used to provide obstetric anesthesia in the United States. The survey was expanded and repeated in 1992 with support from the same organizations.
Methods: Comments and questions from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Obstetrical Anesthesia and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice were added to the original survey instrument to include newer issues while allowing comparison with data from 1981. Using the American Hospital Association registry of hospitals, hospitals were differentiated by number of births per year (stratum I, > or = 1,500 births; stratum II, 500-1,499 births; stratum III, < 500 births) and by U.S. census region. A stratified random sample of hospitals was selected. Two copies of the survey were sent to the administrator of each hospital, one for the chief of obstetrics and one for the chief of anesthesiology.
Results: Compared with 1981 data, there was an overall reduction in the number of hospitals providing obstetric care (from 4,163 to 3,545), with the decrease occurring in the smallest units (56% of stratum III hospitals in 1981 compared with 45% in 1992). More women received some type of labor analgesia and there was a 100% increase in the use of epidural analgesia. However, regional analgesia was unavailable in 20% of the smallest hospitals. Spinal analgesia for labor was used in 4% of parturients. In 1981, obstetricians provided 30% of epidural analgesia for labor; they provided only 2% in 1992. Regional anesthesia was used for 78-85% (depending on strata) of patients undergoing cesarean section, resulting in a marked decrease in the use of general anesthesia. Anesthesia for cesarean section was provided by nurse anesthetists without the medical direction of an anesthesiologist in only 4% of stratum I hospitals but in 59% of stratum III hospitals. Anesthesia personnel provided neonatal resuscitation in 10% of cesarean deliveries compared with 23% in 1981.
Conclusions: Compared with 1981, analgesia is more often used by parturients during labor, and general anesthesia is used less often in patients having cesarean section deliveries. In the smallest hospitals, regional analgesia for labor is still unavailable to many parturients, and more than one half of anesthetics for cesarean section are provided by nurse anesthetists without medical direction by an anesthesiologist. Obstetricians are less likely to personally provide epidural analgesia for their patients. Anesthesia personnel are less involved in newborn resuscitation.
Comment in
-
Obstetric anesthesia coverage. The problem in perspective.Anesthesiology. 1997 Jul;87(1):4-5. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199707000-00002. Anesthesiology. 1997. PMID: 9232128 Review. No abstract available.
-
Obstetric anesthesia 1988-1996 in Northrhine/Germany: results of the Perinatal Survey at the Chambers of Physicians.Anesthesiology. 1998 Nov;89(5):1288-90. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199811000-00052. Anesthesiology. 1998. PMID: 9822032 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Obstetric Anesthesia Workforce Survey: A 30-Year Update.Anesth Analg. 2016 Jun;122(6):1939-46. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001204. Anesth Analg. 2016. PMID: 27088993
-
A state-wide assessment of the obstetric, anesthesia, and operative team personnel who are available to manage the labors and deliveries and to treat the complications of women who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Sep;187(3):611-4. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.124282. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002. PMID: 12237636
-
Obstetric anesthesia: a national survey.Anesthesiology. 1986 Sep;65(3):298-306. Anesthesiology. 1986. PMID: 3752574
-
Spinal and combined spinal epidural techniques for labor analgesia: clinical application in a small hospital.AANA J. 1998 Dec;66(6):587-94. AANA J. 1998. PMID: 10488266 Review.
-
A retrospective review of 10-year trends in general anesthesia for cesarean delivery at a university hospital: the impact of a newly launched team on obstetric anesthesia practice.BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 13;20(1):421. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05314-2. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020. PMID: 32404093 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Epidural analgesia and lactation.Eurasian J Med. 2011 Apr;43(1):45-9. doi: 10.5152/eajm.2011.09. Eurasian J Med. 2011. PMID: 25610159 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Eat, drink, and be labouring?J Perinat Educ. 2002 Winter;11(1):1-13. doi: 10.1624/105812402X88551. J Perinat Educ. 2002. PMID: 17273281 Free PMC article.
-
Risk factors associated with epidural use.J Clin Med Res. 2012 Apr;4(2):119-26. doi: 10.4021/jocmr810w. Epub 2012 Mar 23. J Clin Med Res. 2012. PMID: 22505985 Free PMC article.
-
Survey of the Factors Associated with a Woman's Choice to Have an Epidural for Labor Analgesia.Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2010;2010:356789. doi: 10.1155/2010/356789. Epub 2010 Jun 29. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2010. PMID: 20721286 Free PMC article.
-
Economic considerations related to providing adequate pain relief for women in labour: comparison of epidural and intravenous analgesia.Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(5):305-18. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200220050-00002. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002. PMID: 11994040 Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources