Neonatal mortality in NHS maternity units by timing of birth and method of delivery: a retrospective linked cohort study.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lucy Carty, M. Cortina-Borja, Rachel Plachcinsk, C. Grollman, A. Macfarlane
{"title":"Neonatal mortality in NHS maternity units by timing of birth and method of delivery: a retrospective linked cohort study.","authors":"Lucy Carty, M. Cortina-Borja, Rachel Plachcinsk, C. Grollman, A. Macfarlane","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesPotential ‘weekend effects’ in healthcare prompt concerns that care could be of lower quality during non-working hours, but may reflect differences in case mix or other factors This research aimed to compare neonatal mortality in English hospitals from 2005 to 2014 by time of day and day of the week. \nApproachWe analysed data from a retrospective cohort of 6,054,536 singleton births in England 2005—2014, created by linking ONS birth and death registration and birth notification data with Hospital Episode Statistics. \nWorking hours were defined as 07:00—19:00 on weekdays, and non-working hours were all other times on weekdays and all weekends and public holidays. \nThe primary outcome was all-cause neonatal mortality unattributed to congenital anomaly. We also modelled cause-specific neonatal mortality attributed to asphyxia, anoxia or trauma (AAT). On advice through our public involvement and strategy, analysis was stratified by mode of onset of labour and method of delivery. \nResultsAfter adjustment for confounders, the odds of all-cause neonatal mortality outside of working hours were similar to those during working hours for spontaneous births, instrumental births and emergency caesareans. Planned caesareans occurring in non-working hours had a high crude risk compared to planned caesareans in working hours, but were considered to be unreliably recorded and likely to reflect emergency caesarean delivery of babies originally scheduled for planned caesarean birth. \nFurther stratification of emergency caesareans by onset of labour showed higher odds of cause-specific neonatal mortality (AAT) during non-working compared with working hours for emergency caesareans without labour recorded but not for emergency caesareans after spontaneous or induced onset of labour. \nConclusionIt may be that the apparent ‘weekend effect’ is caused by deaths among the relatively small number of babies who were born by caesarean section apparently without labour outside normal working hours. Obstetric staffing should be planned to allow for these relatively unusual emergencies.","PeriodicalId":36483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Population Data Science","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesPotential ‘weekend effects’ in healthcare prompt concerns that care could be of lower quality during non-working hours, but may reflect differences in case mix or other factors This research aimed to compare neonatal mortality in English hospitals from 2005 to 2014 by time of day and day of the week. ApproachWe analysed data from a retrospective cohort of 6,054,536 singleton births in England 2005—2014, created by linking ONS birth and death registration and birth notification data with Hospital Episode Statistics. Working hours were defined as 07:00—19:00 on weekdays, and non-working hours were all other times on weekdays and all weekends and public holidays. The primary outcome was all-cause neonatal mortality unattributed to congenital anomaly. We also modelled cause-specific neonatal mortality attributed to asphyxia, anoxia or trauma (AAT). On advice through our public involvement and strategy, analysis was stratified by mode of onset of labour and method of delivery. ResultsAfter adjustment for confounders, the odds of all-cause neonatal mortality outside of working hours were similar to those during working hours for spontaneous births, instrumental births and emergency caesareans. Planned caesareans occurring in non-working hours had a high crude risk compared to planned caesareans in working hours, but were considered to be unreliably recorded and likely to reflect emergency caesarean delivery of babies originally scheduled for planned caesarean birth. Further stratification of emergency caesareans by onset of labour showed higher odds of cause-specific neonatal mortality (AAT) during non-working compared with working hours for emergency caesareans without labour recorded but not for emergency caesareans after spontaneous or induced onset of labour. ConclusionIt may be that the apparent ‘weekend effect’ is caused by deaths among the relatively small number of babies who were born by caesarean section apparently without labour outside normal working hours. Obstetric staffing should be planned to allow for these relatively unusual emergencies.
新生儿死亡率NHS产科单位分娩时间和分娩方法:回顾性相关队列研究。
目的医疗保健领域潜在的“周末效应”引发了人们的担忧,即非工作时间的护理质量可能较低,但可能反映了病例组合或其他因素的差异。本研究旨在比较2005年至2014年英国医院按一天中的时间和一周中的一天的新生儿死亡率。方法:我们分析了2005-2014年英格兰6054536名单胎新生儿的回顾性队列数据,这些数据是通过将国家统计局的出生和死亡登记以及出生通知数据与医院事件统计数据联系起来创建的。工作时间定义为工作日的07:00-19:00,非工作时间定义为工作日的所有其他时间以及所有周末和公众假期。主要结局是无先天性异常的全因新生儿死亡率。我们还模拟了由窒息、缺氧或创伤(AAT)引起的新生儿死亡率。根据公众参与和策略的建议,根据分娩方式和分娩方法进行分层分析。结果调整混杂因素后,工作时间以外全因新生儿死亡率与自然分娩、辅助分娩和紧急剖腹产的工作时间内死亡率相似。与在工作时间进行的计划剖腹产相比,在非工作时间进行的计划剖腹产的粗风险较高,但被认为记录不可靠,可能反映了原计划进行计划剖腹产的婴儿的紧急剖腹产。按分娩开始进行的紧急剖腹产进一步分层显示,与工作时间相比,非工作时间的特殊原因新生儿死亡率(AAT)高于没有分娩记录的紧急剖腹产,但与自然分娩或引产后的紧急剖腹产相比,这一比例更高。结论明显的“周末效应”可能是由少数在正常工作时间以外明显未分娩的剖宫产婴儿死亡所致。应计划产科人员配备,以允许这些相对不寻常的紧急情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
386
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信