These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prenatal care: a comparative evaluation of nurse-midwives and family physicians.
    Author: Buhler L, Glick N, Sheps SB.
    Journal: CMAJ; 1988 Sep 01; 139(5):397-403. PubMed ID: 3214491.
    Abstract:
    We evaluated the prenatal care provided to 44 low-risk women by nurse-midwives (NMs) at a special clinic of a large obstetric referral hospital and a sample of 88 low-risk women attended by family physicians (FPs) in their offices. The women were matched on the basis of date of delivery, age, parity, number of previous miscarriages, gravidity, socioeconomic status and delivery after 32 weeks' gestation. The Burlington Randomized Controlled Trial criteria, which reflect community standards of care, were updated and used to assess the information, which was provided on standard provincial prenatal care forms. Scoring was carried out blindly, and interrater reliability was high. A highly significant difference was found in the proportions of NM and FP charts that were rated adequate, superior or inadequate: 77% v. 24%, 7% v. 16% and 16% v. 60% respectively. The rate at which procedures were omitted (leading to an inadequate score) in the categories of initial assessment, monitoring and management also varied between the two patient groups. These findings, even when considered in terms of several biases that may have resulted in the high proportion of NM charts rated at least adequate, suggest that NMs provide prenatal care to low-risk women that is comparable, if not superior, to the care provided by FPs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]