Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T15:38:12.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 25 - Organizational reforms

from Section 3 - Proactive support of labor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2015

Paul Reuwer ,
Hein Bruinse  and
Arie Franx
Paul Reuwer
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, St Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg
Hein Bruinse
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Utrecht University Medical Center
Arie Franx
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, St Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Proactive Support of Labor
The Challenge of Normal Childbirth
 , pp. 178 - 188
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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

Likosky, DS. Clinical microsystems: a critical framework for crossing the quality chasm. J Extra Corpor Technol 2014;46:33–7Google Scholar
Nelson, EC, Batalden, PB, Godfrey, MM. Quality Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. New York: Wiley; 2006Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. London: Mosby; 2003Google Scholar
Hodnett, ED. Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:S160–72Google Scholar
Farrow, VA, Leddy, MA, Lawrence, H, Schulkin, J. Ethical concerns and career satisfaction in obstetrics and gynecology: a review of recent findings from the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2011;66:572–9Google Scholar
Anderson, BL, Hale, RW, Salsberg, E, Schulkin, J. Outlook for the future of the obstetrician-gynecologist workforce. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:e1–e8Google Scholar
Bettes, BA, Chalas, E, Coleman, VH, Schulkin, J. Heavier workload, less personal control: impact of delivery on obstetrician/gynecologists’ career satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:851–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bettes, BA, Strunk, AL, Coleman, VH, Schulkin, J. Professional liability and other career pressures: impact on obstetrician-gynecologists’ career satisfaction. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:967–973Google Scholar
Spickard, A, Gabbe, SG, Christensen, JF. Mid-career burnout in generalists and specialist physicians. JAMA 2002;288:1447–50Google Scholar
Defoe, DM, Power, ML, Holzman, GB, Carpentieri, A, Schulkin, J. Long hours and little sleep: work schedules of residents in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:1015–8Google Scholar
Storr, CI, Trinkoff, AM, Anthony, JC. Job strain and non-medical drug use. Drug Alcohol Depend 1999;55:45–51Google Scholar
Myers, MF. Don’t let your practice kill your marriage. Med Econ 1998;9:78–87Google Scholar
Maulen, B. Depression, divorce, malpractice, bankruptcy: why do so many physicians commit suicide? MMW Fortschr Med 2002;144:4–8Google Scholar
Kravitz, RL, Leigh, JP, Samuels, SJ, Schembri, M, Gilbert, WM. Tracking career satisfaction and perceptions of quality among US obstetricians and gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:463–70Google Scholar
Queenan, JT. The future of obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:441–2Google Scholar
Gibbons, JM. Springtime for obstetrics and gynecology: will the specialty continue to blossom? Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:443–5Google Scholar
Pearse, WH, Haffner, WHJ, Primack, A. Effect of gender on the obstetric-gynecologic work force. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:794–7Google Scholar
Frigoletto, FD, Greene, MF. Is there a sea change ahead for obstetrics and gynecology? Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1342–3Google Scholar
Fang, YM, Egan, JF, Rombro, T, Morris, B, Zelop, CM. A comparison of reasons for choosing obstetrician/gynecologist subspecialty training. Conn Med 2009;73:165–70Google Scholar
Weinstein, L. The laborist: a new focus of practice for the obstetrician. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:310–12Google Scholar
Funk, C, Anderson, BL, Schulkin, J, Weinstein, L. Survey of obstetric and gynecologic hospitalists and laborists. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203:177.e1–4 Epub 2010 June 26Google Scholar
Feldman, DS, Bollman, DL, Korst, LM, et al. The laborist: what is the frequency of this model of care and how is it being used in California? Obstet Gynecol 2014;123 Suppl 1:144SGoogle Scholar
Olson, R, Garite, TJ, Fishman, A, Andress, IF. Obstetrician/gynecologist hospitalists: can we improve safety and outcomes for patients and hospitals and improve lifestyle for physicians? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:81–6. Epub 2012 June 23Google Scholar
McNeil, DA, Vekved, M, Dolan, SM, et al. A qualitative study of the experience of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care for physicians. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13 Suppl 1:S1-6. Epub 2013 January 31Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Ventura, SJ, et al. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2011;60:1–70Google ScholarPubMed
Pitchforth, E, Watson, V, Ryan, M, et al. Models of intrapartum care and women’s trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;115:560–9Google Scholar
Huntley, V, Ryan, M, Graham, W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth 2001;28:254–63Google Scholar
Spurgeon, P, Hicks, C, Barwell, F. Antenatal, delivery and postnatal comparisons of maternal satisfaction with two pilot Changing Childbirth schemes compared with a traditional model of care. Midwifery 2001;17:123–32Google Scholar
Hundley, V, Ryan, M. Are women’s expectations and preferences for intrapartum care affected by the model of care on offer? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111:550–60Google Scholar
Lyon, DS, Mokhtarian, PL, Reever, MM. Predicting style-of-care preferences of obstetric patients: medical vs midwifery model. J Reprod Med 1999;44: 101–6Google Scholar
de Jonge, A, Stuijt, R, Eijke, I, Westerman, MJ. Continuity of care: what matters to women when they are referred from primary to secondary care during labour? A qualitative interview study in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:103. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez, C, des Rivières-Pigeon, C. A literature review on integrated perinatal care. Int J Integrated Care 2007;7:1–15Google Scholar
Declercq, ER, Sakala, C, Corry, MP, Applebaum, S. Listening to mothers: report of the first national US survey of women’s childbirth experiences. New York: Maternity Center Association; 2002Google Scholar
Laynne, LL. Unhappy endings: a feminist reappraisal of the women’s health movement from the vantage of pregnancy loss. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:1881–91Google Scholar
Christiaens, W, Gouwy, A, Bracke, P. Does a referral from home to hospital affect satisfaction with childbirth? A cross-national comparison. BMC Health Services Res 2007;7:109–17Google Scholar
Rijnders, M, Baston, H, Schönbeck, Y, et al. Perinatal factors related to negative or positive recall of birth experience in women 3 years postpartum in The Netherlands. Birth 2008;35:107–16Google Scholar
Olsen, O, Clausen, J. Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012Google Scholar
Catling-Paull, C, Coddington, RL, Foureur, MJ, Homer, CS. Birthplace in Australia Study; National Publicly-funded Homebirth Consortium. Publicly funded homebirth in Australia: a review of maternal and neonatal outcomes over 6 years. Med J Aust 2013;198:616–20Google Scholar
Hendrix, M, Van Horck, M, Moreta, D, et al. Why women do not accept randomisation for place of birth: Feasibility of a RCT in The Netherlands. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;116:537–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Website of the integrated midwifery-obstetrical birth center “Livive” at the St. Elisabeth hospital in Tilburg, the Netherlands. http://www.Livive.nlGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×