Skip to main content
Log in

Maternity unit performance index. A novel approach for evaluation of the changing obstetric practice in a single maternity unit

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To audit obstetric outcomes for primiparous laborers in order to provide accurate information to the population we serve. To establish a simple index by which a maternity unit’s performance can be compared over time and to other units. This index is named, maternity unit performance index (MUPI).

Study design

A retrospective analysis of the obstetric outcome of all nulliparous singleton gestations that have been admitted to labor ward for delivery, between 37 and prior to 41, gestational weeks. The chronical periods examined were: 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995 and 1 January 1985 to 31 December 1985. To these chronical periods we have utilized the MUPI formula.

Results

Retrospective implementation of the MUPI formula resulted in lower mean scores as time progressed. Mean MUPI values for the years 2005, 1995 and 1985 were respectively 0.8, 1.2 and 1.4. Significant differences of MUPI between the three time periods were found (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In our attempt to counsel our first time mothers, we have proposed a simple index of our unit’s performance. This index overcomes the widely used cesarean birth rate. As years go by, MUPI scores decreased steadily. Interpretation of these results suggests a continuously evolving obstetric practice rather than a decrease in the quality of obstetric service provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cleary R, Beard RW, Chapple J, Coles J, Griffin M, Joffe M et al (1996) The standard primipa as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care. BJOG 103:223–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng M, Hannah M (1993) Breech delivery at term: a critical review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol 82:605–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gifford DS, Morton SC, Fiske M, Kahn K (1995) A meta-analysis of infant outcomes after breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 85:1047–1054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth of breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial. Lancet 356:1375–1383

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. The management of Breech Presentation (20), April 2000. Clinical green top guidelines. RCOG

  6. ACOG committee opinion. Mode of term singleton breech delivery (2002) Obstet Gynecol 77:65–66

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thorp JA, Hu DH, Albin RM et al (1993) The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169:851–858

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Thacker S, Stroup D (2000) Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring during labor (The Cochrane Review). Oxford: The Cochrance Library Issue 2

  9. Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts C (2003) Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 102:287–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. [editorial] (1997) What is the right number of caesarean sections? Lancet 349:815

  11. Paterson-Brown S (1998) Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Yes, as long as the woman is fully informed. BMJ 317:462–463

    Google Scholar 

  12. Main E, Moore D, Farell B, Schimmel L, Altman R, Abrahams C et al (2006) Is there a useful cesarean birth measure? Assessment of the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth rate as a tool for obstetric quality improvement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1644–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bailit JL (2007) Measuring the quality of inpatient obstetrical care. Obstet Gynecol Surv 62:207–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mann S, Pratt S, Gluck P et al 2006 Assesing quality in obstetric care: development of standard measures. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 32:497–505

    Google Scholar 

  15. DiGiuseppe DL, Aron DC, Ranbom L et al (2002) Reliability of birth certificate data: a multi-hospital comparison to medical records information. Matern Child Health J 6:169–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Main E, Bloomfield L, Hunt G (2004) Development of a large-scale obstetric quality-improvement program that focused on the nulliparous patient at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:1747–1758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paterson CM, Chapple JC, Beard RW et al (1991) Evaluating the quality of maternity services: a discussion paper. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 98:1073–1078

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmidt N, Abelsen B, Oian P (2002) Deliveries in maternity homes in Norway: results from a 2-year prospective study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:731–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleftherios Anastasakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anastasakis, E., Antsaklis, A. Maternity unit performance index. A novel approach for evaluation of the changing obstetric practice in a single maternity unit. Arch Gynecol Obstet 277, 121–126 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0426-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0426-1

Keywords

Navigation