Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(16): 2222-2228
DOI: 10.1055/a-2302-7334
Original Article

Implementation and Clinical Impact of a Guideline for Standardized, Evidence-Based Induction of Labor

Jourdan E. Triebwasser
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
LeAnn Louis
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Joanne M. Bailey
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Leah Mitchell-Solomon
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Anita M. Malone
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Rebecca F. Hamm 
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Michelle H. Moniz
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Molly J. Stout
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess the impact of implementation of an induction of labor (IOL) guideline on IOL length and utilization of evidence-based practices.

Study Design We conducted a quality improvement project to increase utilization of three evidence-based IOL practices: combined agent ripening, vaginal misoprostol, and early amniotomy. Singletons with intact membranes and cervical dilation ≤2 cm admitted for IOL were included. Primary outcome was IOL length. Secondary outcomes included cesarean delivery and practice utilization. We compared preimplementation (PRE; November 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022) to postimplementation (POST; March 1, 2022 through April 30, 2022) with sensitivity analyses by self-reported race and ethnicity. Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression were used to test the association between period and outcomes.

Results Among 495 birthing people (PRE, n = 293; POST, n = 202), IOL length was shorter POST (22.0 vs. 18.3 h, p = 0.003), with faster time to delivery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.15–1.66), more birthing people delivered within 24 hours (57 vs. 68.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.90 [95% CI: 1.25–2.89]), and no difference in cesarean. Utilization of combined agent ripening (31.1 vs. 42.6%, p = 0.009), vaginal misoprostol (34.5 vs. 68.3%, p < 0.001), and early amniotomy (19.1 vs. 31.7%, p = 0.001) increased POST.

Conclusion Implementation of an evidence-based IOL guideline is associated with shorter induction time. Additional implementation efforts to increase adoption of practices are needed to optimize outcomes after IOL.

Key Points

  • Implementation of an IOL guideline is associated with faster time to delivery.

  • Evidence-based induction practices were used more often after guideline implementation.

  • Adoption of evidence-based induction practices is variable even with a guideline.

Keywords

induction of labor - evidence-based practices - guideline - implementation - combined agent ripening - misoprostol - early amniotomy

Note

This study was presented in part as two poster abstracts at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 44th Annual Meeting in National Harbor, MD, February 10–14, 2024.




Publication History

Received: 12 March 2024

Accepted: 24 March 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
09 April 2024

Article published online:
09 May 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Mathews TJ. Births: Final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2017; 66 (01) 1
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Osterman M, Hamilton B, Martin JA, Driscoll AK, Valenzuela CP. Births: Final data for 2020. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2021; 70 (17) 1-50
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Grobman WA, Caughey AB. Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (04) 304-310
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Gilroy LC, Al-Kouatly HB, Minkoff HL, McLaren Jr RA. Changes in obstetrical practices and pregnancy outcomes following the ARRIVE trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226 (05) 716.e1-716.e12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Nethery E, Levy B, McLean K, Sitcov K, Souter VL. Effects of the ARRIVE (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management) Trial on elective induction and obstetric outcomes in term nulliparous patients. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 142 (02) 242-250
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Triebwasser JE, VanArtsdalen J, Kobernik EK, Seiler K, Langen ES. Assessing maternal and fetal risks associated with prolonged induction of labor. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (05) 455-459
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Hersh AR, Skeith AE, Sargent JA, Caughey AB. Induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation versus expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (06) 590.e1-590.e10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Einerson BD, Nelson RE, Sandoval G. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Cost of elective labor induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136 (01) 19-25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Blanc-Petitjean P, Dupont C, Carbonne B, Salomé M, Goffinet F, Ray CL. MEDIP study group. Methods of induction of labor and women's experience: a population-based cohort study with mediation analyses. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021; 21 (01) 621
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Carbone JF, Tuuli MG, Fogertey PJ, Roehl KA, Macones GA. Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (2 Pt 1): 247-252
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, Parry S, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (06) 1357-1364
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Al-Ibraheemi Z, Brustman L, Bimson BE, Porat N, Rosenn B. Misoprostol with Foley bulb compared with misoprostol alone for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (01) 23-29
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Gallagher LT, Gardner B, Rahman M. et al. Cervical ripening using Foley balloon with or without oxytocin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (04) 406-421
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Haas DM, Daggy J, Flannery KM. et al. A comparison of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for cervical ripening in women for labor induction at term (the IMPROVE trial): a triple-masked randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (03) 259.e1-259.e16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gomez HB, Hoffman MK, Caplan R, Ruhstaller K, Young MHH, Sciscione AC. Buccal vs vaginal misoprostol combined with Foley catheter for cervical ripening at term (the BEGIN trial): a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (05) 524.e1-524.e8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 De Vivo V, Carbone L, Saccone G. et al. Early amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (04) 320-329
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Gomez Slagle HB, Fonge YN, Caplan R, Pfeuti CK, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Early vs expectant artificial rupture of membranes following Foley catheter ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226 (05) 724.e1-724.e9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Levine LD, Downes KL, Hamm RF, Srinivas SK. Evaluating the impact of a standardized induction protocol to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes: a prospective cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021; 34 (19) 3200-3207
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hamm RF, Srinivas SK, Levine LD. A standardized labor induction protocol: impact on racial disparities in obstetrical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2 (03) 100148
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Suresh SC, Kucirka L, Chau DB, Hadley M, Sheffield JS. Evidence-based protocol decreases time to vaginal delivery in elective inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021; 3 (01) 100294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25 (12) 986-992
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL. et al; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95: 103208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kuba K, Estrada-Trejo F, Lambert C. et al. Novel evidence-based labor induction algorithm associated with increased vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Am J Perinatol 2022; 39 (15) 1622-1632
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Lion KC, Faro EZ, Coker TR. All quality improvement is health equity work: designing improvement to reduce disparities. Pediatrics 2022; 149 (Suppl. 03) e2020045948E
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Rosenblatt RA, Dobie SA, Hart LG. et al. Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women. Am J Public Health 1997; 87 (03) 344-351
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 van Haaren-ten Haken TM, Hendrix M, Smits LJ. et al. The influence of preferred place of birth on the course of pregnancy and labor among healthy nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 33
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sørbye IK, Oppegaard KS, Weeks A, Marsdal K, Jacobsen AF. Induction of labor and nulliparity: a nationwide clinical practice pilot evaluation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020; 99 (12) 1700-1709
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Forman J, Heisler M, Damschroder LJ, Kaselitz E, Kerr EA. Development and application of the RE-AIM QuEST mixed methods framework for program evaluation. Prev Med Rep 2017; 6: 322-328
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar