ACOG ePoster Library

Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Introduction: Practitioners have not reached consensus regarding the necessity of elective induction of labor (eIOL). The ARRIVE trial in 2018 concluded eIOL was a reasonable option for low-risk nulliparous patients at 39 weeks, with no increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The goal of the UNVEIL Project Part I was to highlight the diversity of opinions regarding eIOL at 39w0d among obstetric providers.

Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to forty OB/GYN attendings, residents, and certified nurse midwives via Qualtrics at a tertiary care center in Michigan. Thirty-six participants completed the survey. Statistical associations were determined by crosstabs and Fisher’s exact test for probabilities.

Results: Of providers familiar with ARRIVE, 42% claimed it changed their view on eIOL. Residents perceived length of stay on labor and delivery to be longer during eIOL than attending physicians and certified nurse midwives (p =0.028). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely to routinely perform eIOL in low-risk patients than providers with more than 10 years (p =0.013). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely than those with more than 10 years to perform eIOL at patient request for nulliparous (p=0.113) and multiparous (p=0.044) patients with Bishop scores greater than 8. All providers were more likely to perform eIOL at patient request for multiparous patients than nulliparous.

Conclusion/Implications: The study demonstrated differences in perceptions of eIOL among providers. More data on risks and benefits of eIOL is needed to guide development of scheduling protocols and improve consistency of patient care.

Introduction: Practitioners have not reached consensus regarding the necessity of elective induction of labor (eIOL). The ARRIVE trial in 2018 concluded eIOL was a reasonable option for low-risk nulliparous patients at 39 weeks, with no increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The goal of the UNVEIL Project Part I was to highlight the diversity of opinions regarding eIOL at 39w0d among obstetric providers.

Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to forty OB/GYN attendings, residents, and certified nurse midwives via Qualtrics at a tertiary care center in Michigan. Thirty-six participants completed the survey. Statistical associations were determined by crosstabs and Fisher’s exact test for probabilities.

Results: Of providers familiar with ARRIVE, 42% claimed it changed their view on eIOL. Residents perceived length of stay on labor and delivery to be longer during eIOL than attending physicians and certified nurse midwives (p =0.028). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely to routinely perform eIOL in low-risk patients than providers with more than 10 years (p =0.013). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely than those with more than 10 years to perform eIOL at patient request for nulliparous (p=0.113) and multiparous (p=0.044) patients with Bishop scores greater than 8. All providers were more likely to perform eIOL at patient request for multiparous patients than nulliparous.

Conclusion/Implications: The study demonstrated differences in perceptions of eIOL among providers. More data on risks and benefits of eIOL is needed to guide development of scheduling protocols and improve consistency of patient care.

The UNVEIL Project - Part I:UNderstanding Viewpoints & outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor
Dr. Zenobia Ofori-Dankwa
Dr. Zenobia Ofori-Dankwa
Affiliations:
Central Michigan University
ACOG ePoster. Ofori-Dankwa Z. 04/03/2021; 318508; 282
user
Dr. Zenobia Ofori-Dankwa
Affiliations:
Central Michigan University
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Introduction: Practitioners have not reached consensus regarding the necessity of elective induction of labor (eIOL). The ARRIVE trial in 2018 concluded eIOL was a reasonable option for low-risk nulliparous patients at 39 weeks, with no increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The goal of the UNVEIL Project Part I was to highlight the diversity of opinions regarding eIOL at 39w0d among obstetric providers.

Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to forty OB/GYN attendings, residents, and certified nurse midwives via Qualtrics at a tertiary care center in Michigan. Thirty-six participants completed the survey. Statistical associations were determined by crosstabs and Fisher’s exact test for probabilities.

Results: Of providers familiar with ARRIVE, 42% claimed it changed their view on eIOL. Residents perceived length of stay on labor and delivery to be longer during eIOL than attending physicians and certified nurse midwives (p =0.028). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely to routinely perform eIOL in low-risk patients than providers with more than 10 years (p =0.013). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely than those with more than 10 years to perform eIOL at patient request for nulliparous (p=0.113) and multiparous (p=0.044) patients with Bishop scores greater than 8. All providers were more likely to perform eIOL at patient request for multiparous patients than nulliparous.

Conclusion/Implications: The study demonstrated differences in perceptions of eIOL among providers. More data on risks and benefits of eIOL is needed to guide development of scheduling protocols and improve consistency of patient care.

Introduction: Practitioners have not reached consensus regarding the necessity of elective induction of labor (eIOL). The ARRIVE trial in 2018 concluded eIOL was a reasonable option for low-risk nulliparous patients at 39 weeks, with no increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The goal of the UNVEIL Project Part I was to highlight the diversity of opinions regarding eIOL at 39w0d among obstetric providers.

Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to forty OB/GYN attendings, residents, and certified nurse midwives via Qualtrics at a tertiary care center in Michigan. Thirty-six participants completed the survey. Statistical associations were determined by crosstabs and Fisher’s exact test for probabilities.

Results: Of providers familiar with ARRIVE, 42% claimed it changed their view on eIOL. Residents perceived length of stay on labor and delivery to be longer during eIOL than attending physicians and certified nurse midwives (p =0.028). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely to routinely perform eIOL in low-risk patients than providers with more than 10 years (p =0.013). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely than those with more than 10 years to perform eIOL at patient request for nulliparous (p=0.113) and multiparous (p=0.044) patients with Bishop scores greater than 8. All providers were more likely to perform eIOL at patient request for multiparous patients than nulliparous.

Conclusion/Implications: The study demonstrated differences in perceptions of eIOL among providers. More data on risks and benefits of eIOL is needed to guide development of scheduling protocols and improve consistency of patient care.

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies