Sentences with phrase «high intervention rates»

I was definitely concerned about not only the c - section rates, but the very high intervention rates at most hospitals.

In special circumstances, hospitals may be unable or unwilling to offer gentle or personalized choices, such a preference to avoid routine monitoring and drugs; accommodating the needs of older or younger mothers who want a natural birth (and tend to be subject to higher intervention rates); families seeking a natural birth after cesarean.

Not exact matches

Personal auto insurance in Ontario is higher risk because of regulatory intervention to cut rates and lawsuit trends.

Such changes could include tighter capital controls, higher interest rates, and more intervention to support the country's currency, according to the WSJ.

THE BIOPSY»S DANGEROUS CASCADE: HOW TO LESSEN THE NEED FOR INVASIVE TESTING Intervention Track Hosted By: Insigniam Current medical tests are too often marred by high rates of overdiagnosis («false positive» results) or they too often miss the danger altogether («false negatives»).

We have previously described studies of pacing strategy using various experimental interventions, including faster and slower starts, higher temperatures, hypoxia, hyperoxia and altered energy substrate availability.1 We have proposed the presence of a complex, regulatory system that mediates changes to skeletal muscle motor unit activation and work rate in order both to optimise performance and prevent potentially harmful changes to homeostasis.

Chielo did make a few vital interventions on other plays, though, which gives him a bit higher a rating than his counterpart.

Most people that choose to birth at home have only chosen after extensive research and feel that the small risk of a serious complication is preferable to the high rate of intervention in a hospital setting (including the 33 % national caesarean section rate.)

Most people that choose to birth at home have chosen this option after extensive research and feel that the small risk of a serious complication is preferable to the high rate of interventions in a hospital setting (including the 33 % national caesarean section rate, 45 % at some local hospitals).

Most people that choose to birth at home have only chosen after extensive research and feel that the small risk of a serious complication is preferable to the high rate of interventions in a hospital setting (including the 33 % national caesarean section rate.)

planning birth in an obstetric unit is associated with a higher rate of interventions, such as instrumental vaginal birth, caesarean section and episiotomy, compared with planning birth in other settings

With cesarean, induction and epidural rates at an all - time high, what effects might birth interventions have on your ability to meet your breastfeeding goals and what are your options if these interventions are absolutely needed?

Obstetric - led care is more associated with higher rates of interventions and midwifery - led care is associated with fewer interventions.

In the first instance, the rates of interventions to first time mothers are worryingly high.

TECHNIQUES While there is no single or sure way to stop a baby from crying, the following interventions have been found to have a much higher success rate than other approaches.

Flint and colleagues suggested that when midwives get to know the women for whom they provide care, interventions are minimised.22 The Albany midwifery practice, with an unselected population, has a rate for normal vaginal births of 77 %, with 35 % of women having a home birth.23 A review of care for women at low risk of complications has shown that continuity of midwifery care is generally associated with lower intervention rates than standard maternity care.24 Variation in normal birth rates between services (62 % -80 %), however, seems to be greater than outcome differences between «high continuity» and «traditional care» groups at the same unit.25 26 27 Use of epidural analgesia, for example, varies widely between Queen Charlotte's Hospital, London, and the North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Look for a midwife or doctor and birth setting setting with high rates of successful natural births, without routine unnecessary interventions, that completely allows you to have your voice, and respects and supports your decisions.

Common practices do not make common sense and contribute to poor outcomes - the US ranks near the bottom as compared to other modernized countries in terms of maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality, despite high rates of medical and surgical interventions.

These are my insiders secrets to increase your likelihood of avoiding high rates of risky medical and surgical interventions, serious complications including birth trauma for you and your baby, and having the birth of your dreams.

Our current maternity care system's disconnected and medical treatment of birth is what's causing the need for more medical and surgical intervention and emergency situations in the first place; it leads into a cascade of further interventions and more serious problems like the high rates of maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality that plague the United States.

Simply saying «we have higher rates of interventions and higher rates of maternal mortality therefore X = Y» is incorrect.

You are trading a lower rate of intervention for a higher rate of death.

This also exemplifies why we can't simply blame the relative high US maternal mortality rate on the cesarean rate, or the rate of obstetric interventions.

It is also possible that the unique health care system found in the United States — and particularly the lack of integration across birth settings, combined with elevated rates of obstetric intervention — contributes to intrapartum mortality due to delays in timely transfer related to fear of reprisal and / or because some women with higher - risk pregnancies still choose home birth because there are fewer options that support normal physiologic birth available in their local hospitals.

> Low - risk women in this sample experienced high rates of normal physiologic birth and very low rates of operative birth and interventions, with no concomitant increase in adverse events

Out - of - hospital births were also associated with a higher rate of unassisted vaginal delivery and lower rates of obstetrical interventions and NICU admission than in - hospital births, findings that corroborate the results of earlier studies.3 - 5 These associations follow logically from the more conservative approach to intervention that characterizes the midwifery model of care8, 19 and from the fact that obstetrical interventions are either rare (e.g., induction of labor) 20 or unavailable (e.g., cesarean delivery, whether at home or at a birth center) outside the hospital setting.

Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face - to - face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts.

Rates of obstetrical intervention are high in U.S. hospitals, and we found large absolute differences in the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analyses.

Despite the widened socioeconomic inequalities by the intervention in rates of prolonged exclusive and any breastfeeding, breastfeeding rates were even higher among mothers with the lowest education (secondary school or less) in the intervention group than they were among mothers who completed university in the control group.

Although not directly comparable, our findings are in broad agreement with those from routine data in Scotland that have indicated a positive association between Baby Friendly accreditation, but not certification, and breastfeeding at 1 week of age.17 Our findings reinforce those of Coutinho and colleagues who reported that high exclusive breastfeeding rates achieved in Brazilian hospitals implementing staff training with the course content of the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative were short - lived and not sustained at home unless implemented in combination with post-natal home visits.35 Similarly in Italy, training of staff with an adapted version of the Baby Friendly course content resulted in high breastfeeding rates at discharge, with a rapid decrease in the days after leaving hospital.36 In contrast, a cluster randomized trial in Belarus (PROBIT) found an association between an intervention modelled on the Baby Friendly Initiative with an increased duration of breastfeeding37 an association also reported from an observational study in Germany.38 Mothers in Belarus stay in hospital post-partum for 6 — 7 days, and in Germany for 5 days, with post-natal support likely to be particularly important in countries where mothers stay in the hospital for a shorter time, with early discharge likely to limit the influence of a hospital - based intervention.

Results indicated that intervention delivery in combination of settings seemed to have higher improvements in breastfeeding rates.

As the breastfeeding intervention can not be blinded, we rated all studies as being at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel.

Participating children had higher rates of high - school completion, lower rates of grade retention and special education placement, and a lower rate of juvenile arrests.32 Another example showing more intensive programming has larger impacts is the Healthy Steps evaluation showing significantly better child language outcomes when the program was initiated prenatally through 24 months.33 These studies suggest that a more intensive intervention involving the child directly may be required for larger effects to be seen.

The article lost me when they claimed that interventions in hospitals are responsible for high maternal mortality rate in the US.

Rates of respiratory infections, such as pneumonia and bronchitis, metabolic disorders, and eczema were higher among children who experienced any form of birth intervention than those born vaginally.

Their particular concern is the «trends towards excessive, unnecessary, or inappropriate use of obstetric interventions» (p. 2178), including unnecessary ultrasound examinations, routine electronic fetal monitoring, routine episiotomy, high rates of labour induction and augmentation, and non-medically indicated CS.

Low - risk women in this cohort experienced high rates of physiologic birth and low rates of intervention without an increase in adverse outcomes.»

I think you are brave if you are having a hospital birth, the interventions, high c - section rates, episitomies, likelihood for infection and arrogant doctors and nurses scare me to death!

There's no evidence that interventions in the US are causing a higher rate of neonatal deaths.

They know that birthing at home or in a birth center with a trained midwife is a very safe option with lower rates of interventions and high patient satisfaction but now you no longer have to search and search for studies regarding homebirth which are often buried by cultural anecdotes and message boards.

If we are experiencing a high rate of complication that creates an unsafe situation then we would be best off to address the overall health of our population rather than to assume that interventions at the end of pregnancy are the best course of action.

First of all, your last sentence was brilliant: «If we are experiencing a high rate of complication that creates an unsafe situation then we would be best off to address the overall health of our population rather than to assume that interventions at the end of pregnancy are the best course of action.»

They go on to say «Low - risk women in this cohort experienced high rates of physiologic birth and low rates of intervention without an increase in adverse outcomes» which is a lie.

But nonetheless, you can't seriously think doctors have a mortality rate that is two and a half times higher than midwives in hospitals because they do too many interventions?!

In the study by Merewood et al. (27), the rate of any breastfeeding at 12 wk PP was considerably higher in the intervention group than in controls (OR: 2.81, 95 % CI: 1.11 — 7.14; P = 0.03).

But other industrialized countries also have high c - section rates, as well as successful medical interventions that are helping women with pre-existing conditions get pregnant.

The intervention tested by Bonuck et al. (31) yielded impressive results with significantly higher rates of any breastfeeding through 20 wk PP, with the exception of week 18 (53 vs. 39 %, P < 0.05) and greater breastfeeding intensity (defined as more than half of feedings derived from breast milk in this study) through 9 wk (46 vs. 33 %, P < 0.05) in the intervention (vs. control) group.

We are excited to show that midwives have such low intervention rates and high breastfeeding rates.

At 4 wk PP, the intervention group had a significantly higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding than controls (based on 24 - h recall).

He states that the U.S. has the highest obstetrical intervention rates as well as a serious problem with malpractice suits and concludes that a strong, independent midwifery service in the U.S. would be a most important counterbalance to the present situation.