TY - JOUR
T1 - Uptake and utilization of practice guidelines in hospitals in the United States
T2 - The case of routine episiotomy
AU - Kozhimannil, Katy B.
AU - Karaca-Mandic, Pinar
AU - Blauer-Peterson, Cori J.
AU - Shah, Neel T.
AU - Snowden, Jonathan M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/1
Y1 - 2017/1
N2 - Background: The gap between publishing and implementing guidelines differs based on practice setting, including hospital geography and teaching status. On March 31, 2006, a Practice Bulletin published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended against the routine use of episiotomy and urged clinicians to make judicious decisions to restrict the use of the procedure. Objective: This study investigated changes in trends of episiotomy use before and after the ACOG Practice Guideline was issued in 2006, focusing on differences by hospital geographic location (rural/urban) and teaching status. Methods: In a retrospective analysis of discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) - a 20% sample of US hospitals - 5,779,781 hospital-based births from 2002 to 2011 (weighted N = 28,067,939) were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to measure odds of episiotomy and trends in episiotomy use in vaginal deliveries. Results: The overall episiotomy rate decreased from 20.3% in 2002 to 9.4% in 2011. Across all settings, a comparatively larger decline in episiotomy rates preceded the issuance of the ACOG Practice Guideline (34.0% decline), rather than following it (23.9% decline). The episiotomy rate discrepancies between rural, urban teaching, and urban nonteaching hospitals remained steady prior to the guideline's release; however, differences between urban nonteaching and urban teaching hospitals narrowed between 2007 and 2011 after the guideline was issued. Conclusion: Teaching status was a strong predictor of odds of episiotomy, with urban nonteaching hospitals having the highest rates of noncompliance with evidence-based practice. Issuance of clinical guidelines precipitated a narrowing of this discrepancy.
AB - Background: The gap between publishing and implementing guidelines differs based on practice setting, including hospital geography and teaching status. On March 31, 2006, a Practice Bulletin published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended against the routine use of episiotomy and urged clinicians to make judicious decisions to restrict the use of the procedure. Objective: This study investigated changes in trends of episiotomy use before and after the ACOG Practice Guideline was issued in 2006, focusing on differences by hospital geographic location (rural/urban) and teaching status. Methods: In a retrospective analysis of discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) - a 20% sample of US hospitals - 5,779,781 hospital-based births from 2002 to 2011 (weighted N = 28,067,939) were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to measure odds of episiotomy and trends in episiotomy use in vaginal deliveries. Results: The overall episiotomy rate decreased from 20.3% in 2002 to 9.4% in 2011. Across all settings, a comparatively larger decline in episiotomy rates preceded the issuance of the ACOG Practice Guideline (34.0% decline), rather than following it (23.9% decline). The episiotomy rate discrepancies between rural, urban teaching, and urban nonteaching hospitals remained steady prior to the guideline's release; however, differences between urban nonteaching and urban teaching hospitals narrowed between 2007 and 2011 after the guideline was issued. Conclusion: Teaching status was a strong predictor of odds of episiotomy, with urban nonteaching hospitals having the highest rates of noncompliance with evidence-based practice. Issuance of clinical guidelines precipitated a narrowing of this discrepancy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008709436&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008709436&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcjq.2016.10.002
DO - 10.1016/j.jcjq.2016.10.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 28334585
AN - SCOPUS:85008709436
SN - 1553-7250
VL - 43
SP - 41
EP - 48
JO - Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
JF - Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
IS - 1
ER -