PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2022; 39(13): 1389-1395
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748843
SMFM Fellowship Series Article

Impact of Obstetric Communication on Decision-to-Delivery Time

Sarah Crimmins
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Sarah Baumer
2   University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Andrea Theodoru
2   University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Colleen H. Driscoll
3   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective In obstetric emergencies, care coordination is critical in achieving a “decision-to-delivery” time of 30 minutes. Reliable communication is essential to optimize coordinated care of mother and baby. Clinical mobility (CM) platforms have been shown to improve communication during medical emergencies; however, their impact on improving decision-to-delivery times has not been shown. This study aimed to determine the impact of a new CM platform on decision-to-delivery time.

Study Design A multidisciplinary team designed a CM platform that employs a wall-mounted panel paired with mobile technology to alert all relevant clinical staff. This new platform uses in-room preprogrammed messages that alert predetermined responders matching the emergency. For example, the “STAT section” button summons doctors (obstetrics, anesthesiology, and neonatology), obstetric nurses, and newborn resuscitation staff via smartphones. Impact of this platform was assessed with process and outcome data: cord artery pH, 5-minute Apgar's score; and decision for cesarean section to time of: skin incision, uterine incision, and delivery. This pre- and postimplementation study (October–September 2018 vs. January–December 2019) centered on the opening of our new Obstetric Care Unit. Data were analyzed with Chi-square and Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results Emergent cesarean delivery was performed in 172 women pre- and 124 postimplementation of the new CM platform. In postimplementation, we observed a 7.4-minute reduction in time from decision-to-delivery (26 pre- vs. 18.6 minutes postimplementation, p = 0.001). Delivery within 30 minutes improved by 15.2% (p = 0.018). Times to skin and uterine incision were also significantly reduced. The two groups had similar neonatal outcomes: birth weight, Apgar's score at 5 minutes, and cord artery pH did not differ, but the study was underpowered to compare these outcomes.

Conclusion This new CM platform significantly reduced decision-to-delivery time, in turn improving compliance with the “30-minute rule.” All relevant personnel were contacted specifically, while avoiding overhead paging and other unnecessary messages.

Key Points

  • Obstetric communication via a clinical mobility platform shortens the delivery to delivery interval

  • Obstetric communication systems via an information technology (IT)-system results in a higher frequency of deliveries within 30 minutes.

  • Communication systems may be a useful tools to synchronously call multiple services to respond.

Keywords

obstetrical communication - decision-to-delivery - cesarean section - clinical mobility


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. September 2021

Angenommen: 21. März 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. Mai 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kamoshita E, Amano K, Kanai Y. et al. Effect of the interval between onset of sustained fetal bradycardia and cesarean delivery on long-term neonatal neurologic prognosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 111 (01) 23-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Levy DM. Emergency Caesarean section: best practice. Anaesthesia 2006; 61 (08) 786-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kayani SI, Walkinshaw SA, Preston C. Pregnancy outcome in severe placental abruption. BJOG 2003; 110 (07) 679-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Leung TY, Chung PW, Rogers MS, Sahota DS, Lao TT, Hung Chung TK. Urgent cesarean delivery for fetal bradycardia. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (05) 1023-1028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Helmy WH, Jolaoso AS, Ifaturoti OO, Afify SA, Jones MH. The decision-to-delivery interval for emergency caesarean section: is 30 minutes a realistic target?. BJOG 2002; 109 (05) 505-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lippke S, Derksen C, Keller FM, Kötting L, Schmiedhofer M, Welp A. Effectiveness of communication interventions in obstetrics-a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (05) 2616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hughes Driscoll CA, Cleveland M, Gurmu S, Crimmins S, El-Metwally D. Research: replacing overhead paging with smartphones to reduce hospital noise. Biomed Instrum Technol 2020; 54 (04) 251-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hughes Driscoll CA, Schub JA, Pollard K, El-Metwally D. A wireless text messaging system improves communication for neonatal resuscitation. Am J Med Qual 2017; 32 (03) 307-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hughes Driscoll CA, Gurmu S, Azeem A, El Metwally D. Implementation of smart phones to facilitate in-hospital telephone communication: Challenges, successes and lessons from a neonatal intensive care unit. Healthc (Amst) 2019; 7 (03) 100331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McArdle J, Sorensen A, Fowler CI, Sommerness S, Burson K, Kahwati L. Strategies to improve management of shoulder dystocia under the AHRQ safety program for perinatal care. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2018; 47 (02) 191-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Guimond ME, Foreman SE, Werb M. Evaluation of an unfolding obstetric experience simulation in an undergraduate nursing program. Nurse Educ Today 2019; 79: 124-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thomas J, Paranjothy S, James D. National cross sectional survey to determine whether the decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section. BMJ 2004; 328 (7441): 665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I. What is a reasonable time from decision-to-delivery by caesarean section? Evidence from 415 deliveries. BJOG 2002; 109 (05) 498-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bruce D, Stone S, Harding K. Evaluation of emergency caesarean sections–completion of the audit cycle in a Central London teaching hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22 (03) 273-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cerbinskaite A, Malone S, McDermott J, Loughney AD. Emergency caesarean section: influences on the decision-to-delivery interval. J Pregnancy 2011; 2011: 640379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bloom SL, Leveno KJ, Spong CY. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Decision-to-incision times and maternal and infant outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (01) 6-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tolcher MC, Johnson RL, El-Nashar SA, West CP. Decision-to-incision time and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (03) 536-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tashfeen K, Patel M, Hamdi IM, Al-Busaidi IHA, Al-Yarubi MN. Decision-to-delivery time intervals in emergency caesarean section cases: repeated cross-sectional study from Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2017; 17 (01) e38-e42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Johnson KR, Hagadorn JI, Sink DW. Alarm safety and alarm fatigue. Clin Perinatol 2017; 44 (03) 713-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lafitte AS, Vardon D, Morello R, Lecerf M, Stewart Z, Dreyfus M. Can we reduce the decision-to-delivery interval in case of emergency cesarean sections by optimizing the premises' architecture? [in French]. Gynécol Obstét Fertil Sénol 2017; 45 (11) 590-595
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kritsotakis G, Gkorezis P, Andreadaki E. et al. Nursing practice environment and employee silence about patient safety: the mediating role of professional discrimination experienced by nurses. J Adv Nurs 2022; 78 (02) 434-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schmiedhofer M, Derksen C, Keller FM. et al. Barriers and facilitators of safe communication in obstetrics: results from qualitative interviews with physicians, midwives and nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (03) 915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar