Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:18:50.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Audit of antenatal care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Marion H Hall
Marion H Hall*
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, UK
*
Marion H Hall, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AberdeenA B9 2ZD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although antenatal care was widely introduced in the Western world only in the 20th century, it is now universally accepted and advocated as beneficial and advisable for all pregnant women and hence consumes a considerable amount of accommodation, equipment, professional time and costs to the women themselves. Resource use is rarely measured routinely but must vary enormously because of differences in the amount and intensity of care proposed, and in its uptake, in different geographical settings. However, even when resource use is at the lower end of the spectrum, antenatal care should be audited so that the needs of women and their babies can be best addressed.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 19 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Williams, JW. The limitations and possibilities of prenatal care. JAMA 1915; 64: 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Oakley, A. The origins and development of antenatal care. In: Enkin, M, Chalmers, Ieds. Effectiveness and satisfaction in antenatal care. London: Spastics International Medical Publications, 1982; 1–21.Google Scholar
3Bryce, R, Stanley, FJ, Blair, E. The effects of intrapartum care on the risk of impairments in childhood. In: Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989; 1313–21.Google Scholar
4Mason, V. Women’s experiences of maternity care. A survey manual. London: HMSO, 1989.Google Scholar
5Barker, DJP, Bull, AR, Osmond, C, Simmonds, SJ. Fetal and placental size and risk of hypertension in adult life. Br Med J 1990; 301: 259–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1989.Google Scholar
7Report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom 1985–87. London: HMSO, 1991.Google Scholar
8British eclampsia study. Manchester: RCOG Medical Audit Unit, 1992.Google Scholar
9Bryce, FD, Clayton, JK, Rand, RJ, Beck, F, Farquharson, DIM, Jones, SE. General practitioner obstetrics in Bradford. Br Med J 1990; 300: 725–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Examples of monitoring and evaluation in obstetrics and gynecology. Illinois: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organisations, 1990.Google Scholar
11 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Interim guidelines on medical audit. London: RCOG, 1990.Google Scholar
12 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Medical Audit Unit, second bulletin. London: RCOG, 1991.Google Scholar
13 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Medical Audit Unit, third bulletin. London: RCOG, 1991.Google Scholar
14Garcia, J. Getting consumers’ views of maternity care. London: HMSO, 1989.Google Scholar
15Brown, SS. Prenatal care, reaching mothers, reaching infants. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.Google Scholar
16Hakansson, A, Aberg, A, Atterwall, I, Hagander, B, Schersten, B. Antenatal care in southern Sweden. A population based prospective study describing the diagnostic panorama of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991; 70: 531–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Thomas, P, Golding, J, Peters, TJ. Delayed antenatal care: does it affect pregnancy outcome? Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 715–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Standards for obstetric-gynecologic services, 6th edition. Washington, DC: AmericanCollege of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1985.Google Scholar
19Blondel, B. Antenatal care in the countries of the European Community over the last 20 years. In: Breart, GM, Buckens, P, Huisjes, HJ, Mcllwaine, G, Selbmann, H eds. Perinatal care delivery systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
20Hall, MH, Chng, PK, MacGillivray, I. Is routine antenatal care worthwhile? Lancet 1980; 2: 78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Report of the RCOG working party on antenatal care and intrapartum care. London: RCOG, 1982.Google Scholar
22Young, D. How can we “enrich” prenatal care? Birth 1990; 17: 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Public Health Service expert panel on the content of prenatal care. Caring for our future: the content of prenatal care. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1989.Google Scholar
24Klein, M, Lloyd, I, Redman, C. A comparison of low risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90:118–28.Google ScholarPubMed
25Flint, C, Poulengeris, P. The “Know Your Midwife” report, 1987, London. London: C Flint, 49 Peckarman’s Wood, London.Google Scholar
26Hakansson, A. Comparison between the outcome of antenatal care led primarily by district physician or by obstetrician. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1988; 67: 639–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Elbourne, D, Richardson, M, Chalmers, I, Waterhouse, I, Holt, E. The Newbury maternity care study: A randomized controlled study to assess a policy of women holding their own obstetric records. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 612–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Redman, S, Oak, S, Booth, P, Jensen, J, Saxton, A. Evaluation of an antenatal education programme: characteristics of attenders, changes in knowledge and satisfaction of participants. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 31: 310–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Gillies, P. Anti-smoking intervention during pregnancy: impact on smoking behaviour and birthweight. In: Poswillo, D, Alberman, E eds. Effects of smoking on the fetus, neonate and child. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1992; 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Shipp, M, Cronghan-Minihane, MS, Petitti, DB, Washington, AE. Estimation of the break even point for smoking cessation programs in pregnancy. Am J Publ Health 1992; 82: 383–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Breart, G, Ringa, V. Routine or selective ultrasound scanning. In: Hall, MH ed. Baillière’s Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Antenatal Care. London: Baillière Tindall, 1990: 45–63.Google Scholar
32Lilford, RJ, Chard, T. The use of a small computer to provide action suggestions in the booking clinic. Acta Obstet Gynecol Jap 1984; 36: 119–25.Google ScholarPubMed
33Berkeley, MIKB, Moffat, MAJ, Russell, D. Surveillance of antibody to rubella virus in Grampian: closing the immunity gap. Br Med J 1991; 303: 1174–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Chitty, LS, Hunt, GH, Moore, J, Lobb, MO. Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population. Br Med J 1991; 303: 1165–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Luck, C. Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: a four year study of 8849 deliveries. Br Med J 1992; 304: 1474–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Wald, NJ, Kennard, A, Densem, JW, Cuckle, HS, Chard, T, Butler, L. Antenatal maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome: results of a demonstration project. Br Med J 1992; 305: 391–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Hofmeyr, GJ. Breech presentation and abnormal lie in late pregnancy. In: Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 653–65.Google Scholar
38Backe, B, Herland, R, Jacobsen, G, Nakling, J, Tandberg, A, Telje, J, Overlie, BN. Evaluering av svangerskaps-omsorgen, 1991. Trondheim: Norsk Institutt for Syke husforskning, 7034.Google Scholar
39Hall, MH, Maclntyre, S, Porter, M. Antenatal care assessed. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
40Eik-Nes, SH, Grottum, P, Persson, P-H, Marsal, K. Prediction of fetal growth deviation by ultrasonic biometry. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982; 61: 53–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41 Anon. Doppler ultrasound in obstetrics. Lancet 1992; 339: 1083–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Hall, M, Campbell, D. Cost-effectiveness of persent programmes for detection of asymptomatic hypertension in relation to the severity of hypertension and proteinuric hypertension. Int J Technol Assess in Health Care 1992; in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Grant, A. Cervical cerclage to prolong pregnancy. In: Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 633–46.Google Scholar
44Crowley, P. Promoting pulmonary maturity. In: Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989; 746–66.Google Scholar
45Hall, MH. Identification of high risk and low risk. In: Hall, M, ed. Baillière’s Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. London: Baillière Tindall, 1990: 65–76.Google Scholar
46Hall, MH. Antenatal care: the view of the women and of the obstetrician. In: Chard, T, Richards, MPM eds. Obstetrics in the 1990s: current controversies. Oxford: MacKeith Press, 1992: 121–31.Google Scholar
47Gregory, R, Tattersall, RB. Are diabetic pre-pregnancy clinics worthwhile? Lancet 1992; 340: 656–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48House of Commons Health Committee. Second report. Maternity services. Volume 1. London: HMSO, 1992.Google Scholar