Induction of labour: creation of a classification of Grenoble allowing an assessment of the evaluation of practices

Background

Induction of labour, a very common obstetric procedure, affects about one in five pregnant women in most developed countries. Induction of labour is medically indicated, is subject to risks and additional costs, and is often poorly experienced by patients. The practices concerning induction vary widely from centre to centre and therefore need to be evaluated. Our aim was to develop a tool for evaluating induction of labour which would facilitate geographical and temporal comparisons.

Methods

We have created a classification based on the principles of the internationally known Robson classification. It should be simple, robust, reproducible and require readily available data in each file. The groups are fully inclusive and mutually exclusive. This classification has been validated by a Delphi method.

Results

Our classification includes 8 clinically relevant groups according to 5 obstetrical criteria. In order to classify each patient into a group, a simple system based on a maximum of 7 successive questions (from 1 to 7 questions) is used. Our classification has been validated by 13 national experts with satisfactory overall approval.

Conclusions

With a view to improving the quality of care, our Grenoble classification would allow a standardization of the evaluation of practices of the induction of labour over time in the same maternity hospital. It would also allow the comparison of practices within different maternity hospitals in a network, a country or even different countries.

Induction of labour in low-resource settings

Due to the disparity in resource availability between low- and high-resource settings, practice recommendations relevant to high-income countries are not always relevant and often need to be adapted to low-resource settings. The adaptation applies to induction of labour (IOL) which is an obstetric procedure that deserves special attention because it involves the initiation of a process that requires regular and frequent monitoring of the mother and foetus by experienced healthcare professionals. Lack of problem recognition and/or substandard care during IOL may result in harm with long-term sequelae. In this article, the authors discuss unique challenges such as insufficient resources (including staff, midwives, doctors, equipment, and medications) that result in occasional inadequate patient monitoring and/or delayed interventions during IOL in low-resource settings. We also discuss modifications in indications and methods for IOL, issues related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, the feasibility of outpatient induction, clinical protocols and a minimum dataset for quality improvement projects. Overall, the desire to achieve a vaginal birth with IOL should not cloud the necessity to observe the required safety measures and implement necessary interventions; given that childbirth practices are the major determinants of pregnancy outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Trends and characteristics of women undergoing induction of labour in a tertiary hospital setting: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

In many well-resourced countries, rising rates of intervention are being observed during pregnancy, labour and childbirth with induction of labour (IOL) fast becoming one of the most common. In Australia, the rate of induction of labour has increased by over 30% since 2007, and today one in three women have their labours induced. We do not however have a good understanding of the contribution of specific obstetric populations to this trend.

METHODS

We examine the contribution of specific obstetric populations to induction of labour over a six-year period at one tertiary maternity service, using the Nippita classification system. Average Annual Percentage Changes (AAPC) were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals and P values set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The overall rate of induction of labour increased from 21.3% in 2012 to 30.9% in 2017, representing an Average Annual Percent Change of 8.1, P<0.0001 (95% CI 7-9.6). The greatest AAPC was seen in group 5 (parous, no previous caesarean section, 39-40 weeks, single cephalic), followed by group 2 (nulliparous, 39-40 weeks, single cephalic) and 1 (nulliparous, 37-38 weeks, single cephalic).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Nippita classification system allowed for standardised comparison across timepoints, facilitating identification of the subpopulations driving changes in rates of induction of labour. Rates of induction of labour saw a year on year increase which in this maternity service, it is not being driven by post-dates pregnancies. Further work is required to understand the role of other potential contributors such as diabetes.

Risk factors for severe perineal trauma during childbirth: An updated meta-analysis

Several studies have investigated the importance of maternal, fetal factors and intrapartum characteristics in predicting severe perineal lacerations. The purpose of the present systematic review is to accumulate current evidence and provide estimated effect sizes for the various risk factors described. We reviewed Medline, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL and Google Scholar for published studies in the field for observational studies as well as randomized controlled trials. Two researchers independently assessed the included studies and documented outcomes. Data extraction was performed using a modified data form that was based in Cochrane`s data collection form for intervention reviews for RCTs and non-RCTs. Forty-three articles were selected for inclusion in the present systematic review. The analyzed population reached 716,031 parturient of whom 22,280 (3,1%) sustained third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations. Several risk factors were identified. Instrumental delivery [RR 3.38 (2.21, 5.18)], midline episiotomy [RR 2.88 (1.79, 4.65)] and a persistent occiput posterior position [RR 2.73 (2.08, 3.58)] were associated with the higher risk of developing severe perineal lacerations. Mediolateral episiotomy did not increase, but was also not protective against perineal lacerations [RR 1.55 (0.95, 2.53)]. Several factors contribute to the development of severe perineal lacerations. The present meta-analysis presents accumulated data that may help physicians estimate risks and provide appropriate patient counseling.

Target populations to reduce cesarean rates after induced labor: A national population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Great variations in cesarean rates after induction of labor exist and reasons for these disparities remain unclear. They may be explained by individual characteristics or obstetric practices. Ten-group classification systems have proved their utility to monitor cesarean rates in general population. We aimed to identify groups of women that account for most cesareans after induction of labor using the Nippita reproducible 10-group classification, specifically designed for induced population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective population-based cohort study was performed in 94 French maternity units, including 3042 women undergoing induction of labor. Women were sorted according to 10 mutually exclusive groups based on parity, weeks of gestation, number of fetuses, fetal presentation and previous cesarean delivery. Relative size, cesarean delivery rate and contribution to the overall cesarean rate were described for each group. Cesarean rates were compared according to the Bishop score at the onset of labor induction. Indications for cesarean delivery were also described in the groups that contributed most to the overall cesarean rate. The MEDIP protocol was registered in ClinicalTrial (NCT02477085).

RESULTS

The overall cesarean rate was 21.0% among this population of induced women. Nulliparous women with a term singleton cephalic fetus (groups 1, 2 and 3; at 37-38, 39-40 and ≥41 weeks of gestation, respectively) accounted for two-thirds of the overall cesarean rate because they were the largest group (relative size of 10.6, 16.6 and 18.1%, respectively) and had higher cesarean rates (27.2, 30.9 and 33.0%, respectively). When the Bishop score was <6 (n = 2270/3042), cesarean delivery rates were higher (24.1 vs 10.7% if Bishop score ≥6, P < 0.01), in particular for group 1 (29.1 vs 12.5%, P = 0.02), and group 2 (33.3 vs 19.3%, P = 0.01). In groups 1, 2 and 3, which contributed most to the overall cesarean rate, a significant part of the cesareans were performed before 6 cm of cervical dilation for dystocia only (40.0, 16.7 and 17.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Nulliparous women with a term singleton cephalic fetus and an unfavorable cervix represent the population to target for auditing induction practices. Specific actions could be implemented among this population to weigh the benefits and risks of induction and improve the management of labor induction.

Variation in hospital rates of induction of labour: a population-based record linkage study

OBJECTIVES

To examine interhospital variation in rates of induction of labour (IOL) to identify potential targets to reduce high rates of practice variation.

DESIGN

Population-based record linkage cohort study.

SETTING

New South Wales, Australia, 2010-2011.

PARTICIPANTS

All women with live births of ≥24 weeks gestation in 72 hospitals.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Variation in hospital IOL rates adjusted for differences in case-mix, according to 10 mutually exclusive groups derived from the Robson caesarean section classification; groups were categorised by parity, plurality, fetal presentation, prior caesarean section and gestational age.

RESULTS

The overall IOL rate was 26.7% (46,922 of 175,444 maternities were induced), ranging from 9.7% to 41.2% (IQR 21.8-29.8%) between hospitals. Nulliparous and multiparous women at 39-40 weeks gestation with a singleton cephalic birth were the greatest contributors to the overall IOL rate (23.5% and 20.2% of all IOL respectively), and had persisting high unexplained variation after adjustment for case-mix (adjusted hospital IOL rates ranging from 11.8% to 44.9% and 7.1% to 40.5%, respectively). In contrast, there was little variation in interhospital IOL rates among multiparous women with a singleton cephalic birth at ≥41 weeks gestation, women with singleton non-cephalic pregnancies and women with multifetal pregnancies.

CONCLUSIONS

7 of the 10 groups showed high or moderate unexplained variation in interhospital IOL rates, most pronounced for women at 39-40 weeks gestation with a singleton cephalic birth. Outcomes associated with divergent practice require determination, which may guide strategies to reduce practice variation.