日本における院内助産システムの安全性に関する文献レビュー  [in Japanese] A review of literature concerning safety in midwife-managed delivery units systems in Japan  [in Japanese]

Access this Article

Search this Article

Abstract

院内助産システムの安全性を探ることを目的とし、医学中央雑誌を用いて、「院内助産システム」また、「院内助産」、「助産師外来」「バースセンター」のキーワードで国内文献を検索した。ヒットした 831 件のうち、2012 年から 5 年間に絞り 261 件、さらに原著論文に限定して85 件が抽出された。そのうち、運用基準、医師への移行(医療介入 )率の記載、分娩アウトカム指標の記述がある文献 11 件を分析対象とした。 助産師外来の記載があった文献は 5 件、院内助産は 10 件、助産師外来と院内助産の記載があった文献は 4 件であった。 助産師外来から非助産師外来への移行率は 4.0 〜 8.8% であり、非助産師外来のローリスクからハイリスク移行率 9.0% に比較して低率であった。また、院内助産における医師の医療介入率は9.6〜44.4%で、非院内助産における医療介入率41〜46.6%より低率であった。分娩アウトカムは児の体重と臍帯血 pH、会陰裂傷においては非院内助産と有意差がなかった。 院内助産システムの運用基準は、産婦人科診療ガイドラインを基本に、各施設で独自に選定対象基準を記載しており、助産師外来は、妊娠初期から中期まで医師が担当する協働の実態があった。助産師外来と院内助産の安全性が示唆される一方で、分娩の施設間で運用基準が異なるため、系統的なメタ分析を妨げているという課題が見えた。以上から院内助産システムの運用に関するガイドラインの検討と院内システムの標準化を進展することが早急の課題と考える。This study was performed to verify the safety of midwife-managed delivery units in Japan based on a review of the domestic literature. We conducted a literature review using the Ichushi-Web (Japan Medical Abstracts Society) and searched the domestic literature with the keywords "midwife-managed delivery units system," "midwife-managed delivery units," "midwife-led examinations," and "birth center." A total of 831 articles were identified, of which 261 papers were published between 2012 and 2016, from which 85 were extracted as original articles. Eleven transcripts were analyzed by extracting the transfer rate from midwife-led examinations to obstetrician-led examinations, obstetric intervention of midwife-managed delivery units, neonatal and physiological outcomes, and safety. There were five studies with descriptions of midwife-led examinations, ten studies with descriptions of midwife-managed delivery units, and four describing both systems. The rate of transfer to obstetrician-led examinations was 4.0% – 8.8%, which was low compared to the high-risk transition rate of 9.0% for obstetric outpatients. The obstetric intervention rate in midwife-managed delivery units was 9.6% – 44.4%, which was lower than the obstetric intervention rate of 41% – 46.6% in deliveries managed by physicians. The neonatal and physiological outcomes were not significantly different according to the weight of the child, umbilical cord arterial blood pH, or perineal lacerations in the physician control group. The operation criteria of midwife-led examinations and midwife-managed delivery units are based on the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Practice Guidelines, and many facilities have established their own criteria.  In outpatient midwifery clinics, the doctor was in charge from early pregnancy to mid-term. This study suggested that midwife-led examinations and midwife-managed delivery units have good levels of safety. On the other hand, there were differences in operation standards among the facilities, which prevented more reliable meta-analysis of midwife-managed delivery units. To further disseminate midwife-managed delivery units, it is necessary to evaluate not only the outcome items but also operational criteria, and establish standards according to the environment, facilities, and personnel of each facility.

Journal

  • Journal of wellness and health care = Journal of wellness and health care

    Journal of wellness and health care = Journal of wellness and health care 42(1), 85-94, 2018-08-01

    Wellness and Health Care Society

Codes

  • NII Article ID (NAID)
    120006498377
  • Text Lang
    JPN
  • Article Type
    departmental bulletin paper
  • ISSN
    2434-1509
  • Data Source
    IR 
Page Top