Avaliação da qualidade da assistência ao parto normal

IF 1 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia Pub Date : 2011-10-01 DOI:10.1590/S0100-72032011001000005
Margareth Rocha Peixoto Giglio, E. França, J. Lamounier
{"title":"Avaliação da qualidade da assistência ao parto normal","authors":"Margareth Rocha Peixoto Giglio, E. França, J. Lamounier","doi":"10.1590/S0100-72032011001000005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of health care assistance during childbirth in the hospitals of Goiânia, in Brazil. METHODS: Thirteen hospitals were appraised from April to December 2007, and a random sample of 404 normal births was studied. Data were obtained from interviews with mothers after delivery and by consulting their medical records. The quality of assistance at birth was evaluated by using the Bologna score and by comparing the procedures used in those hospitals to standard recommended practices. RESULTS: The Bologna score presented an average value of 1.04 (95%CI=0.9-1.1). The elective caesarian rate was 30%, the emergency caesarian rate was 10%, and the rate of induced childbirth was 1.6% The percentage of childbirths attended by health care professionals was 100%, but pediatricians in the delivery room were present only in 30% of the time. During labor, half of the women had no evaluation of the uterine dynamics and 29% had no auscultation fetal monitoring. The partogram was used for only 28.5% of the women, whereas the use of oxytocin was 45.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate a poor quality of childbirth care with low values of the Bologna score, high elective and emergency caesarians rates, a high number of unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions, and an insufficient frequency of beneficial interventions.","PeriodicalId":47257,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-72032011001000005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of health care assistance during childbirth in the hospitals of Goiânia, in Brazil. METHODS: Thirteen hospitals were appraised from April to December 2007, and a random sample of 404 normal births was studied. Data were obtained from interviews with mothers after delivery and by consulting their medical records. The quality of assistance at birth was evaluated by using the Bologna score and by comparing the procedures used in those hospitals to standard recommended practices. RESULTS: The Bologna score presented an average value of 1.04 (95%CI=0.9-1.1). The elective caesarian rate was 30%, the emergency caesarian rate was 10%, and the rate of induced childbirth was 1.6% The percentage of childbirths attended by health care professionals was 100%, but pediatricians in the delivery room were present only in 30% of the time. During labor, half of the women had no evaluation of the uterine dynamics and 29% had no auscultation fetal monitoring. The partogram was used for only 28.5% of the women, whereas the use of oxytocin was 45.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate a poor quality of childbirth care with low values of the Bologna score, high elective and emergency caesarians rates, a high number of unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions, and an insufficient frequency of beneficial interventions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正常分娩护理质量评价
目的:评价巴西goi尼亚医院分娩期间的卫生保健援助质量。方法:2007年4 - 12月对13家医院进行评价,随机抽取正常新生儿404例进行调查。数据是通过对分娩后母亲的访谈和查阅她们的医疗记录获得的。通过使用博洛尼亚评分并将这些医院使用的程序与标准推荐做法进行比较,评估了助产服务的质量。结果:Bologna评分平均值为1.04 (95%CI=0.9 ~ 1.1)。选择性剖宫产率为30%,紧急剖宫产率为10%,引产率为1.6%。由卫生保健专业人员接生的比例为100%,但产房的儿科医生只有30%的时间在场。在分娩过程中,一半的妇女没有子宫动力学评估,29%没有听诊胎儿监护。只有28.5%的女性使用了剖宫产图,而使用催产素的比例为45.8%。结论:结果表明分娩护理质量差,博洛尼亚评分值低,选择性和急诊剖腹产率高,不必要和潜在有害的干预措施数量多,有益干预措施的频率不足。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, ISSN 1806-9339) is a monthly publication of scientific divulgation of the Federação das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (FEBRASGO). It is directed to obstetricians, gynecologists and professionals of related areas, with the purpose of publishing research results on relevant topics in the field of Gynecology, Obstetrics and related areas. It is open to national and international contributions and the journal receives submissions only in English.
期刊最新文献
Função sexual de mulheres com infertilidade [Determinants of maternal near miss in an obstetric intensive care unit]. [Limitations and controversies in determining the predictive value of oocyte and embryo morphology criteria]. Efeito do exercício físico sobre os parâmetros hemodinâmicos Expressão proteica do gene HOXA10 e dos receptores de estrogênio e progesterona no epitélio, estroma e tecido muscular liso perilesional de endometriose do reto-sigmoide
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1