Personnel-itis: a myth or a pathology? A retrospective analysis of obstetrical and perinatal outcomes for physicians and nurses

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Objective:To evaluate whether medical personnel differ from the general population in obstetrical and perinatal outcomes.Materials and methods:The participants comprised 46 physicians and 116 nurses employed at one medical center who gave birth in its maternity hospital. General medical and obstetrical data on their latest (“index”) pregnancy and delivery were extracted from real-time computerized patient files. The control group included 162 women who gave birth during the same period in the same hospital.Results:The study group had significantly more deliveries, cesarean sections, and terminations of pregnancy prior to the index pregnancy. The medical personnel conceived significantly more often with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) (18.8% vs. 8% for controls, P<0.05), and had significantly more obstetrical complications, i.e., premature contractions, gestational diabetes mellitus, preeclamptic toxemia, and 2nd/3rd trimester bleeding or chorioamnionitis (42.5% vs. 29% for controls, P<0.05). The rate of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) was lower in the study group (22.2% vs. 33.3% for controls, P=0.03). There was no difference in gestational age at delivery, birth weight, or adverse neonatal outcome.Conclusions:Medical personnel utilized ART more frequently and had more pregnancy complications as well as a lower incidence of VBAC than non-personnel. Neonatal outcomes were similar for both groups.

    loading  Loading Related Articles