产科肛门括约肌损伤后综合文件的评估。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Urogynecology Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1007/s00192-024-05986-y
Sunny K Lee, Catherine Keller, Meng Yao, Katie Propst, Cecile A Ferrando
{"title":"产科肛门括约肌损伤后综合文件的评估。","authors":"Sunny K Lee, Catherine Keller, Meng Yao, Katie Propst, Cecile A Ferrando","doi":"10.1007/s00192-024-05986-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) has increased in recent years, which may be due to improved recognition and documentation. There is limited evidence regarding the effects of thorough documentation of obstetric anal sphincter injury repairs on postpartum clinical outcomes. Our objectives were to (1) compare the incidence of perineal wound complications between documentation groups, (2) compare other adverse events, and (3) to describe factors associated with adequate documentation. We hypothesized that better documentation would be associated with improved clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study of 599 patients with OASI at a tertiary care referral center between January 2015 and December 2020. A priori definitions of documentation adequacy were utilized to stratify delivery notes. On the basis of these criteria, there were preferred, adequate, and inadequate documentation groups. Maternal characteristics, outcomes, and peripartum factors were compared between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the groups. A higher degree of perineal laceration (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p = 0.002), and the need for repairs in the operating room (p = 0.019) were significant factors associated with adequate documentation. Clinicians who were comprehensive in their documentation were more likely to refer patients to Urogynecology (p < 0.001) and to add OASI to the electronic medical record problem list (p = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While certain factors are associated with adequate documentation, this did not improve clinical outcomes for OASI and further research is warranted to explore the importance of medical documentation surrounding OASI.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Comprehensive Documentation After Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury.\",\"authors\":\"Sunny K Lee, Catherine Keller, Meng Yao, Katie Propst, Cecile A Ferrando\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00192-024-05986-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) has increased in recent years, which may be due to improved recognition and documentation. There is limited evidence regarding the effects of thorough documentation of obstetric anal sphincter injury repairs on postpartum clinical outcomes. Our objectives were to (1) compare the incidence of perineal wound complications between documentation groups, (2) compare other adverse events, and (3) to describe factors associated with adequate documentation. We hypothesized that better documentation would be associated with improved clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study of 599 patients with OASI at a tertiary care referral center between January 2015 and December 2020. A priori definitions of documentation adequacy were utilized to stratify delivery notes. On the basis of these criteria, there were preferred, adequate, and inadequate documentation groups. Maternal characteristics, outcomes, and peripartum factors were compared between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the groups. A higher degree of perineal laceration (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p = 0.002), and the need for repairs in the operating room (p = 0.019) were significant factors associated with adequate documentation. Clinicians who were comprehensive in their documentation were more likely to refer patients to Urogynecology (p < 0.001) and to add OASI to the electronic medical record problem list (p = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While certain factors are associated with adequate documentation, this did not improve clinical outcomes for OASI and further research is warranted to explore the importance of medical documentation surrounding OASI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Urogynecology Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Urogynecology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05986-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05986-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言和假设:近年来,产科肛门括约肌损伤(OASI)的发生率有所上升,这可能是由于识别和记录能力的提高。关于彻底记录产科肛门括约肌损伤修复对产后临床结果的影响,目前证据有限。我们的目标是:(1) 比较记录组之间会阴伤口并发症的发生率;(2) 比较其他不良事件;(3) 描述与充分记录相关的因素。我们假设,更好的记录将与临床结果的改善相关:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是 2015 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间在一家三级医疗转诊中心就诊的 599 名 OASI 患者。采用先验的文件记录充分性定义对分娩记录进行分层。根据这些标准,分为首选记录组、充分记录组和不充分记录组。对各组产妇的特征、预后和围产期因素进行了比较:结果:各组间的临床结果无明显差异。会阴裂伤程度较高(P虽然某些因素与适当的记录有关,但这并不能改善 OASI 的临床预后,因此有必要进一步研究探讨有关 OASI 的医疗记录的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of Comprehensive Documentation After Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury.

Introduction and hypothesis: The incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) has increased in recent years, which may be due to improved recognition and documentation. There is limited evidence regarding the effects of thorough documentation of obstetric anal sphincter injury repairs on postpartum clinical outcomes. Our objectives were to (1) compare the incidence of perineal wound complications between documentation groups, (2) compare other adverse events, and (3) to describe factors associated with adequate documentation. We hypothesized that better documentation would be associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 599 patients with OASI at a tertiary care referral center between January 2015 and December 2020. A priori definitions of documentation adequacy were utilized to stratify delivery notes. On the basis of these criteria, there were preferred, adequate, and inadequate documentation groups. Maternal characteristics, outcomes, and peripartum factors were compared between the groups.

Results: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the groups. A higher degree of perineal laceration (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p = 0.002), and the need for repairs in the operating room (p = 0.019) were significant factors associated with adequate documentation. Clinicians who were comprehensive in their documentation were more likely to refer patients to Urogynecology (p < 0.001) and to add OASI to the electronic medical record problem list (p = 0.005).

Conclusions: While certain factors are associated with adequate documentation, this did not improve clinical outcomes for OASI and further research is warranted to explore the importance of medical documentation surrounding OASI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
期刊最新文献
Impact of Treatment of Pudendal Neuralgia on Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Machine-Learning-Based Predictive Model for Bothersome Stress Urinary Incontinence Among Parous Women in Southeastern China. Sonographic Sling Position and the Outcome of the Tension-Free Vaginal Tape-Obturator in Asian Chinese. Effects of Urinary Incontinence Subtypes on Quality of Life and Sexual Function among Women Seeking Weight Loss. The Association between Depression and Overactive Bladder: A Cross-Sectional Study of NHANES 2011-2018.
×
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