The Association between Solo versus Group Obstetrical Practice Model and Delivery Outcomes

Abstract

Objective To determine if women under the care of obstetricians in solo practice have different delivery outcomes from women in a group practice.

Study Design This is a retrospective cohort of live, term, singleton, vertex (LTSV) deliveries at one hospital from 2011 to 2015. We compared outcomes between women whose obstetrician was in solo practice with women in a group practice model.

Results There were 18,214 LTSV deliveries by private obstetricians. Solo obstetricians were more likely to deliver at night (41.0 vs. 37.5%, p = 0.002) and less likely to induce labor (22.6 vs. 30.6%, p < 0.001). Solo obstetricians had a significantly higher rate of cesarean delivery (35.7 vs. 27.2%, adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 1.53, 95% confidence interval, CI [1.32, 1.78]), but also had a significantly lower rate of shoulder dystocia (0.4 vs. 1.4, aOR: 0.42, 95% CI [0.19, 0.89]), third or fourth degree lacerations (1.6 vs. 2.4%, aOR: 0.56, 95% CI [0.35, 0.914]), and neonatal intensive care unit admission rates (3.2 vs. 6.2%, aOR: 0.57, 95% CI [0.42, 0.77]).

Conclusion In a large, tertiary care hospital, solo obstetricians have similar neonatal outcomes as group obstetricians. Their higher cesarean delivery rate is balanced by fewer shoulder dystocias and third/fourth degree lacerations, indicating a more conservative approach to labor management. Patient outcomes should not be a reason to discourage a solo practice model.

Keywords

Outcomes - solo - group - obstetrician

Note

This study was presented as a poster at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, February 1–4, 2018, Dallas, TX.

• References

• 1 Rayburn WF, Strunk AL. Profiles about practice settings of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists fellows. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (06) 1295-1298
• 2 Keeton K, Fenner DE, Johnson TR, Hayward RA. Predictors of physician career satisfaction, work-life balance, and burnout. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (04) 949-955
• 3 DiVenere L, Yates J. Is private ob-gyn practice on its way out?. OBG Management 2011; 23: 43-54
• 4 Iriye BK, Huang WH, Condon J. , et al. Implementation of a laborist program and evaluation of the effect upon cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (03) 251.e1-251.e6
• 5 Metz TD, Allshouse AA, Gilbert SAB, Doyle R, Tong A, Carey JC. Variation in primary cesarean delivery rates by individual physician within a single-hospital laborist model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (04) 531.e1-531.e6
• 6 Martin J, Hamilton B, Osterman M, Driscoll A, Mathews T. Births: final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2017; 66 (01) 1
• 7 Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (05) 1181-1193
• 8 Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (6, Suppl): S2-S10
• 9 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (03) 693-711
• 10 Srinivas SK, Small DS, Macheras M, Hsu JY, Caldwell D, Lorch S. Evaluating the impact of the laborist model of obstetric care on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215 (06) 770.e1-770.e9