oru.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (2 of 2) Show all publications
Jansson, M., Nilsson, K. & Franzén, K. (2019). Development and validation of a protocol for documentation of obstetric perineal lacerations. International Urogynecology Journal, 30(12), 2069-2076
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Development and validation of a protocol for documentation of obstetric perineal lacerations
2019 (English)In: International Urogynecology Journal, ISSN 0937-3462, E-ISSN 1433-3023, Vol. 30, no 12, p. 2069-2076Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to develop a new protocol for documentation of perineal lacerations and to validate the latter against the most common obstetric record system in Sweden. The hypothesis was that the new protocol would render more complete data on perineal lacerations than the current documentation method.

METHODS: A protocol for documentation of perineal lacerations was developed to be sufficiently comprehensive to serve research purposes. All women delivering their first child vaginally from 13 October 2015 to 1 February 2016 at Örebro University Hospital were eligible for the validation study. Perineal lacerations were documented using the protocol in parallel with the regular obstetric record system (ObstetriX). Cross tabulations were used to compare the coverage regarding perineal lacerations between the two documentation methods. McNemar's test was used to evaluate systematic differences between the methods.

RESULTS: A total of 187 women were included. The coverage of documentation regarding perineal laceration was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the new protocol (89%) compared with ObstetriX (18%). Incidence of second-degree perineal tears was 26% according to the new protocol and 11% according to ObstetriX. The incidence of third-degree perineal tears A, B, and C was 2.7%, 2.1%, and 2.1%, respectively, according to the new protocol, and 3.2%, 2.7%, and 1.1% according to ObstetriX.

CONCLUSIONS: This validation study of a new documentation protocol showed that it delivered significantly more comprehensive information regarding perineal lacerations than the most common obstetric record system in Sweden.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019
Keywords
Health administrative data, Obstetric anal sphincter injuries, Perineal tear, Validation studies
National Category
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-73244 (URN)10.1007/s00192-019-03915-y (DOI)000499749200011 ()30888454 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85063196573 (Scopus ID)
Note

Funding Agency:

Research committee of Örebro County 

Available from: 2019-03-20 Created: 2019-03-20 Last updated: 2019-12-19Bibliographically approved
Jansson, M., Cao, Y., Nilsson, K., Larsson, P.-G. & Hagberg, L. (2018). Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean section. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 16, Article ID 66.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean section
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, ISSN 1478-7547, E-ISSN 1478-7547, Vol. 16, article id 66Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: The proportion of pregnant women delivered by cesarean section has increased steadily during the past three decades. The risk of infection is 10-fold augmented after elective cesarean section compared to vaginal delivery. Antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce endometritis by 62% and superficial wound infection by 38% after elective cesarean section. International guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean section, but this procedure is not routinely followed in Sweden. Studies of costs of antibiotic prophylaxis in cesarean section show conflicting results and are based on substantially different incidence of postoperative infections. No study of costs of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean section in a Swedish or Nordic context has been pursued. The aim of this study was to investigate if antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-reducing in elective cesarean section in orebro County, Sweden.

Methods: All women undergoing elective cesarean in the Region orebro County health care system during 2011-2012 were eligible for inclusion. Postoperative infections and risk factors for infections were registered. A hypothetical situation in which all participants had received antibiotic prophylaxis was compared to the actual situation, in which none of them had received antibiotic prophylaxis. The reduction in the risk of postoperative infections resulting from antibiotic prophylaxis was based on a meta-analysis. Costs for in-patient care of postoperative infections were extracted from the accounting system, and costs for out-patient care were calculated according to standard costs. Costs for antibiotic prophylaxis were calculated and compared with the cost reduction that would be implied by the introduction of such prophylaxis.

Results: The incidences of deep and superficial surgical site infection were 3.5% and 1.3% respectively. Introduction of antibiotic prophylaxis would reduce health care costs by 31 Euro per cesarean section performed (95% credible interval 4-58 Euro). The probability of cost-saving was 99%.

Conclusions: Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean section is cost-reducing in this health care setting. Our results indicate that the introduction of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean section can also be cost-saving in low infection rate settings.

Trial registration Ethical approval was given by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala (registration number 2013/484).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMC, 2018
Keywords
Cesarean section, Surgical wound infection, Antibiotic prophylaxis, Costs and cost analysis
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-71239 (URN)10.1186/s12962-018-0168-x (DOI)000453740600001 ()30574024 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85058818087 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2019-01-09 Created: 2019-01-09 Last updated: 2019-01-09Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-1776-1338

Search in DiVA

Show all publications