In addition, most of these studies
used planned place of birth at the onset of labor [1 - 6,8].
Not exact matches
Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome
of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start
of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was
used to compare outcomes by
planned place of birth at the start
of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units).
The relative benefits and risks
of birth in different settings have been widely debated in recent years.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A problem when trying to evaluate the effect
of birth setting on perinatal outcomes has been the
use of actual
place of birth rather than
planned place of birth to define comparison groups.
On January 1, 2012, Oregon introduced new questions on the
birth certificate to document the
planned place of delivery at the time a woman began labor.13 We
used birth - certificate data to assess maternal outcomes and fetal and neonatal outcomes according to the
planned place of delivery.
We performed a population - based, retrospective cohort study
of all
births that occurred in Oregon during 2012 and 2013
using data from newly revised Oregon
birth certificates that allowed for the disaggregation
of hospital
births into the categories
of planned in - hospital
births and
planned out -
of - hospital
births that took
place in the hospital after a woman's intrapartum transfer to the hospital.
Thirdly, this study
used only clinically defined outcomes to determine the cost effectiveness
of planned place of birth.
We
used multiple regression to estimate the differences in total cost between the settings for
birth and to adjust for potential confounders, including maternal age, parity, ethnicity, understanding
of English, marital status, BMI, index
of multiple deprivation score, parity, and gestational age at
birth, which could each be associated with
planned place of birth and with adverse outcomes.12 For the generalised linear model on costs, we selected a γ distribution and identity link function in preference to alternative distributional forms and link functions on the basis
of its low Akaike's information criterion (AIC) statistic.
Profiles
of resource
use, and their associated unit costs, for each
planned place of birth are reported in detail in appendices 1 and 2 on bmj.com.25 The total mean costs per low risk woman
planning birth in the various settings at the start
of care in labour were # 1631 ($ 1950, $ 2603) for an obstetric unit, # 1461 ($ 1747, $ 2332) for an alongside midwifery unit, # 1435 ($ 1715, $ 2290) for a free standing midwifery unit, and # 1067 ($ 1274, $ 1701) for the home (table 1 ⇓).
None
of these can be properly attributed to the
planned place of birth when
using birth certificate data, and this matters greatly when examining rare outcomes such as deaths.
Objective To be able to
use my over 4 years» experience as executive assistant and contribute to the development
of the company Personal Information Thomas Carpenter 987 Argonne Street Newark, DE 19714 (222)-143-5537
[email protected] Date
of Birth: Aug 12th, 1979
Place of Birth: Urbana, IL Citizenship: American Gender: Male Profile Summary Well developed skills in
Planning and Scheduling Excellent Costumer Service skills Excellent computer skills Education B.S. in Management, 2002 Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA Employment History Administrative Assistant II, 2007 — Present Olive's Line, Cambridge, MD Responsibilities: Assisted the visitors and offered services as appropriate Set - up and assembled the media kits during site visits.