9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Correction: Length of stay following vaginal deliveries: A population based study in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005-2015

      correction

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is an error in the caption for Fig 1. Please see the complete, correct Fig 1 caption here. 10.1371/journal.pone.0213664.g001 Fig 1 Flowchart displaying the various criteria applied to the initial database to obtain the final number of hospital records available for the analysis. SVD = spontaneous vaginal deliveries; IVD = instrumental vaginal deliveries; CS = cesarean sections. There is an error in the caption for Fig 2. Please see the complete, correct Fig 2 caption here. 10.1371/journal.pone.0213664.g002 Fig 2 Conceptual framework explaining the relationship between various determinants and length of hospital stay after childbirth (LoS). There is an error in Table 2. Please see the complete, correct Table 2 here. 10.1371/journal.pone.0213664.t001 Table 2 Distribution of length of stay (LoS) after childbirth by maternal health factors. Number; mean LoS (M) ± standard deviation (SD); row percentage (row %). NA = Not applicable. FACTORS STRATA ALL BIRTHS VAGINAL DELIVERY MODE Number M ± SD(days) SPONTANEOUS(N = 75,497) INSTRUMENTAL(N = 7,281) LoS >2 days(Row %) LoS > 3 days(Row %) Delivery mode (Missing: 1) Spontaneous 75,497 2.9 ± 1.1 64.4 Instrumental 7,281 3.3 ± 1.3 32.0 Caesarean 26,467 4.7 ± 1.7 Mother Age (years)(Missing: 32) 15–19 1,254 3.4 ± 1.5 72.0 31.5 20–24 9,485 3.3 ± 1.5 68.7 34.7 25–29 23,675 3.3 ± 1.4 65.6 27.8 30–34 38,381 3.3 ± 1.4 63.5 32.5 35–39 28,860 3.4 ± 1.5 62.8 32.6 40–44 7,214 3.6 ± 1.6 62.8 37.9 45+ 345 4.3 ± 2.3 74.8 40.0 Hypertension/diabetes (Missing: 63) No 106,690 3.3 ± 1.4 64.2 31.8 Yes 2,493 4.5 ± 2.4 74.6 41.8 Villi sample (Missing: 6) No 105,993 3.3 ± 1.5 64.3 32.0 Yes 4,247 3.5 ± 1.5 67.5 32.0 Amniocentesis (Missing: 6) No 91,986 3.3 ± 1.5 64.2 31.2 Yes 17,254 3.5 ±1.5 65.5 36.6 Fetoscopy (Missing: 6) No 108,892 3.3 ± 1.5 64.4 32.0 Yes 348 3.4 ±1.5 66.8 37.9 Number of obstetric checks (Missing: 1) <4 20,856 3.5 ± 1.6 65.4 35.3 4–7 65,800 3.3 ± 1.4 66.6 32.3 8+ 22,589 3.3 ± 1.5 56.7 28.8 Number of US scans in pregnancy (Missing: 7) <4 19,003 3.1 ± 1.4 56.5 25.7 4–5 52,873 3.3 ± 1.4 62.6 28.6 6+ 37,363 3.6 ± 1.6 72.1 36.9 Labour analgesia (Missing: 184) No 89,536 3.3 ± 1.5 63.6 28.5 Yes 19,526 3.3 ± 1.4 67.7 38.1 Labour induction (Missing: 68) No 81,859 2.9 ± 1.1 64.1 31.0 Yes 27,319 4.6 ± 1.7 82.6 51.5 Neonatal status Liveborn 108,944 3.4 ± 1.5 64.5 32.1 Stillborn 302 2.8 ± 2.8 12.3 6.7 Pre-delivery LoS (days)(Missing: 594) <3 103,769 3.3 ± 1.4 64.3 31.8 3–5 3,142 4.1 ± 2.0 68.8 35.6 6+ 1,741 5.0 ± 2.9 69.3 45.8 Presentation (Missing:181) Cefalic Spontaneous 75,118 2.9 ± 1.0 64.4 Instrumental 7,248 3.3 ± 1.3 32.0 Breech Spontaneous 368 3.0 ± 1.4 61.0 Instrumental 27 3.8 ± 1.6 48.2 Shoulder Spontaneous 0 NA NA NA Instrumental 0 NA NA NA There are errors in Table 5. Please see the correct Table 5 here. 10.1371/journal.pone.0213664.t002 Table 5 Multiple logistic regression analysis. Outcome: length of hospital stay (LoS) longer than ED benchmarks (2 days for spontaneous vaginal deliveries; 3 days for instrumental vaginal deliveries). Effect estimates for hospital and calendar year adjusted for all other factors. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR*) and population attributable risks (PAR1 $ , PAR2,** PAR3, $ PAR4**) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). NA = Not available; observations = complete (case analysis) observations. FACTORS STRATA VAGINAL DELIVERY MODE SPONTANEOUS INSTRUMENTAL aOR (95%CI)(LoS >2 vs. ≤ 2)(73,281 observations) PAR1 (95%CI) PAR2 (95%CI) aOR (95%CI)(LoS >3 vs. ≤ 3)(7,050 observations) PAR3 (95%CI) PAR4 (95%CI) HOSPITAL A reference reference reference reference reference reference B 89.38 (78.49; 101.78) +64.5% (+63.4%; +65.6%) +65.8% (+64.6%; +67.0%) 7.90 (6.38; 9.78) +44.8% (+41.0%; +48.5%) +43.2% (+39.4%; +46.9%) C 4.86 (4.51; 5.23) +37.5% (+35.9%; +39.0%) +38.1% (+36.5%; +39.7%) 0.83 (0.59; 1.17) -0.0% (-5.2%; +4.3) -0.3% (-4.3%; +3.7.%) D 26.47 (22.35; 31.46) +59.0 (+57.5%; +60.6%) +60.2% (+58.6%; +61.8%) 7.85 (5.08; 12.12) +44.7% (+35.1%; +53.4%) +43.0 (+33.0%; +52.1%) E 8.40 (7.68; 9.19) +46.7% (+45.1%; +48.2%) +47.5 (+45.9%; +49.1%) 2.21 (1.67; 2.94) +16.1% (+10.7%; +21.5%) +14.5% (+9.5%; +19.4%) F 2.93 (2.69; 3.20) +27.4% (+25.6%; +29.3%) +27.9% (+26.0%; +29.8%) 0.79 (0.58; 1.08) -1.1% (-5.2%; +3.1%) -1.0 (-4.3%; +2.8%) G 0.77 (0.72; 0.83) -1.0 (-2.2; +1.0%) -1.0% (-2.1%; +1.0%) 0.72 (0.56; 0.95) -2.2% (-5.7%; +1.4%) -1.7 (-4.7%; +1.3%) H 2.78 (2.61; 2.96) +26.3% (+24.8; +27.7%) +26.7% (+25.2%; +28.2%) 1.53 (1.21; 1.94) +9.0% (+5.0%; +13.0%) +7.9% (+4.4%; +11.4%) I 10.42 (9.49; 11.44) +49.7% (+48.2%; +51.2%) +50.6% (+49.0%; +52.1%) 2.85 (2.15; 3.78) +21.5% (+15.8%; +27.1%) +19.6% (+14.2%; +24.9%) J 2.39 (2.24; 2.55) +23.1% (+21.6%; +24.6%) +23.5% (+22.0%; +25.0%) 2.56 (2.03; 3.23) +19.2% (+14.8; +23.5%) +17.3% (+13.4%; +21.3%) K 10.30 (9.45 11.21) +49.5% (+48.1%; +51.0) +50.4% (+48/9%; +51.9%) 2.41 (1.88; 3.10) +17.9% (+13.2%; +22.5%) +16.1% (+11.8%; +20.4%) * Multiple logistic regression model adjusted for: Health care setting and time-frame factors (hospital and calendar year); Maternal health factors (mother’s age; hypertension/diabetes; amniocentesis; number of obstetric checks; number of ultrasound scans performed; labour induction; labour analgesia; neonatal status; presentation; pre-delivery LoS); Child’s fragility factors (Apgar score at 5 minutes; ICU admission; multiple birth); Child’s size factors (gestational age; birthweight; placenta weight); Obstetric history factors (parity; history of caesarean sections); Socio-demographic factors (father’s age; mother’s nationality; mother’s educational level) $ Population Attributable Risk 1 (PAR 1) and 3 (PAR 3). Proportional variation of LoS < ED after childbirth in the ideal scenario each hospital would be performing as hospital A during calendar year 2015 ** Population Attributable Risk 2 (PAR 2) and 4 (PAR4). Proportional variation of LoS < ED after childbirth in the ideal scenario each hospital would be performing as hospital A during calendar year 2015. Estimations of PAR2 and PAR4 calculated only for low risk pregnancies, defined as conditions of the mother and/or the newborn simultaneously meeting all the following criteria: for spontaneous vaginal deliveries (PAR 2): mother’s age<35; no resuscitation performed; child not admitted to ICU; singleton birth; Apgar score at 1 minute ≥7; Apgar score at 5 minutes ≥8; no labour induction; no women affected by hypertension/diabetes; birthweight: 2,500–3,999gr; gestational age: 37–40 weeks; pre delivery LoS <2 days; for instrumental vaginal deliveries (PAR 4): in addition to all above criteria, the calculation of PAR4 was restricted to women not administered with labour analgesia. In the Results, there is an error in the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph. The correct sentence is: The proportional increase in LoS<ED for SVD would range from +23.1% (centre J) up to +64.5% (centre B), and would be +59.0%, +49.7%, +49.5%, +46.7%, +37.5%, +27.4% and +26.3% for centres D, I, K, E, C, F and H respectively (PAR1). In the Generalizability subsection of the Discussion, there is an error in the first sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: The pooled mean LoS for SVD was 2.9 days in FVG during the whole study period (2005–2015), shorter than the average figures most recently reported for the whole of Italy (3.4 days). There are errors in the Methods. The title of the subsection “Child’s clinical factors fragility” is incorrect. The correct subsection title is: “Child’s clinical factors.” In the Statistical analysis subsection, there is an error in the third item of the first list. The correct third item is: previous spontaneous abortions, as the relative effect size was not consistent across the two vaginal delivery modes. In the Maternal health factors subsection, there is an error in the first sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: Table 2 displays the classes of clinical explanatory factors related with the maternal health domain: mother’s age, hypertension/diabetes, amniocentesis, villi sample, fetoscopy, pre-delivery LoS, presentation, labour induction, labour analgesia, neonatal status, number of obstetric checks performed, number of ultrasound (US) scans performed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Length of stay following vaginal deliveries: A population based study in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005-2015

          Background Lengths of hospital stay (LoS) after childbirth that are too long have a number of health, social and economic drawbacks. For this reason, in several high-income countries LoS has been reduced over the past decades and early discharge (ED) is increasingly applied to low-risk mothers and newborns. Methods We conducted a population-based study investigating LoS after chilbirth across all 12 maternity centres of Friuli Venezia-Giulia (FVG), North-Eastern Italy, using a database capturing all registered births in the region from 2005 to 2015 (11 years). Adjusting for clinical factors (clinical conditions of the mother and the newborn), socio-demographic bakground and obstetric history with multivariable logistic regression, we ranked facility centres for LoS that were longer than our proposed ED benchmarks (defined as >2 days for spontaneous vaginal deliveries and >3 days for instrumental vaginal deliveries). The reference was hospital A, a national excellence centre for maternal and child health. Results The total number of births examined in our database was 109,550, of which 109,257 occurred in hospitals. During these 11 years, the number of births significantly diminished over time, and the pooled mean LoS for spontaneous vaginal deliveries in the whole FVG was 2.9 days. There was a significantly decreasing trend in the proportion of women remaining admitted more than the respective ED cutoffs for both delivery modes. The percentage of women staying longer that the ED benchmarks varied extensively by facility centre, ranging from 32% to 97% for spontaneous vaginal deliveries and 15% to 64% for instrumental vaginal deliveries. All hospitals but G were by far more likely to surpass the ED cutoff for spontaneous deliveries. As compared with hospital A, the most significant adjusted ORs for LoS overcoming the ED thresholds for spontaneous vaginal deliveries were: 89.38 (78.49–101.78); 26.47 (22.35–31.36); 10.42 (9.49–11.44); 10.30 (9.45–11.21) and 8.40 (7.68–9.19) for centres B, D, I, K and E respectively. By contrast the OR was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.72–0.83) for centre G. Similar mitigated patterns were observed also for instrumental vaginal deliveiries. Conclusions For spontaneous vaginal deliveries the mean LoS in the whole FVG was shorter than 3.4 days, the average figure most recently reported for the whole of Italy, but higher than other countries’ with health systems similar to Italy’s. Since our results are controlled for the effect of all other factors, the between-hospital variability we found is likely attributable to the health care provider itself. It can be argued that some maternity centres of FVG may have had ecocomic interest in longer LoS after childbirth, although fear of medico-legal backlashes, internal organizational malfunctions of hospitals and scarce attention of ward staff on performance efficiency shall not be ruled out. It would be therefore important to ensure higher level of coordination between the various maternity services of FVG, which should follow standardized protocols to pursue efficiency of care and allow comparability of health outcomes and costs among them. Improving the performance of FVG and Italian hospitals requires investment in primary care services.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            PLoS One
            PLoS ONE
            plos
            plosone
            PLoS ONE
            Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
            1932-6203
            6 March 2019
            2019
            6 March 2019
            : 14
            : 3
            : e0213664
            Article
            PONE-D-19-05816
            10.1371/journal.pone.0213664
            6402662
            30840695
            55809616-5cb4-4ddf-8aae-80649dce587b
            © 2019 Cegolon et al

            This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

            History
            Page count
            Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 6
            Categories
            Correction

            Uncategorized
            Uncategorized

            Comments

            Comment on this article