Family Preferences Strongly Influence Decision Making in Very Premature Deliveries
Wide variation in practices and counseling reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Philadelphia, PA, March 2, 2012 – When making decisions and counseling about risk and management options for deliveries between 22 and 26 weeks (periviable deliveries), obstetricians are heavily influenced by family preferences, particularly by the impression that parents consistently prefer to have everything possible done to prolong a pregnancy or “save the baby” through interventions such as cesarean section. The results of a University of Pennsylvania study are published in the March issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Periviable neonates bear the greatest burden of neonatal death and illness. As many as one half of the babies do not survive, and half of those who do survive experience moderate to severe neurologic disability. How these cases are obstetrically managed can influence neonatal outcomes. A previous study found that obstetricians’ willingness to perform cesarean delivery at 24 weeks increased the odds of survival 3.7 times, but doubled the chance of survival with serious morbidity.
In the current study investigators conducted structured interviews of 21 obstetricians at academic medical centers in Philadelphia. Respondents were asked to describe their typical approach to managing periviable delivery, and the patient, institutional, and personal factors that influence their clinical decision making. They were also asked about their approach to counseling patients, and what challenges they faced in doing so.
The authors found that, although circumscribed by institutional norms, obstetric decision making and counseling for periviable deliveries were influenced primarily by patient preference, clinical presentation, and perspectives on patient autonomy. Most institutions had no formal policies to dictate practice standards for periviable care, and study participants described a considerable amount of variation in practice. Even within the same institution, thresholds vary for what would be considered “savable.” “It’s very much dependent upon who’s on that night,” commented one participant.
“While most participants said their first consideration was balancing maternal and child well-being, and the need to weigh the questionable benefits of cesarean delivery for neonatal survival against the known risks of maternal morbidity, many described a ‘do everything default,’ wherein interventions to prolong the pregnancy were universally pursued unless patients actively opted out,” explains Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, MD, MS, MPH, who completed this research during a fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania and is currently an assistant professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Indiana University.
How the obstetricians viewed patient autonomy weighed heavily in their approach to decision making and counseling. Some saw it as their job to offer information rather than direction. Others made recommendations to guide care, arguing that the complexity and emotionality of the situation make patients incapable of making decisions about their care. The greatest challenge described was in communicating the uncertainty about fetal outcomes and the ability of obstetrical interventions to actually improve those outcomes. “In counseling patients, the obstetricians prioritized objectivity and respect for autonomy but deemphasized hope. However, a recent study found that patients who faced these decisions prioritized hope. Such discordances contribute to the challenge of managing patients’ expectations in periviable counseling,” says Dr. Tucker Edmonds.
While most believed that patient sociodemographic factors did not influence their clinical decisions, they reported that it is more challenging to counsel patients with less education or poor English-speaking skills. They described treating older patients and those undergoing infertility treatments more aggressively than younger patients. “Obstetricians may be less attentive to the inherent social and economic implications of having an IVF pregnancy and therefore less aware of the potential bias that is created in appraising these pregnancies differently than others,” notes Dr. Tucker Edmonds.
“Interventions and curricula to aid physicians in the communication of uncertainty, management of expectations, and assessment of patients’ understanding, values, and goals are needed to equip physicians to provide more patient-centered periviable care,” Dr. Tucker Edmonds concludes.
# # #
Notes for editors
“Obstetric Decision-Making and Counseling at the Limits of Viability," by B. Tucker Edmonds, S. Krasny, S. Srinivas, J. Shea. (doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.11.011). It will appear in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 206, Issue 3 (March 2012), published by Elsevier.
Full text of the article is available to credentialed journalists upon request. Contact Francesca Costanzo at + 1 215 239 3249or email@example.com to obtain a copy. Journalists wishing to schedule interviews with the author should contact Mary Hardin at +1 317 274 5456 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
About the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology known as “The Gray Journal,” presents coverage of the entire spectrum of the field, from the newest diagnostic procedures to leading-edge research. The journal provides comprehensive coverage of the specialty, including maternal-fetal medicine, reproductive endocrinology/infertility, and gynecologic oncology. It also publishes the annual meeting papers of several of its 7 sponsoring societies, including the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.
The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology's 2010 Impact Factor is 3.313. It is ranked 8th out of 75 and continues to be ranked #1 in citations in the Obstetrics & Gynecology category, according to the latest Journal Citation Reports® 2011, published by Thomson Reuters. The journal’s standard of excellence and continued success can be attributed to the strong leadership of Editors-in-Chief Thomas J. Garite, MD, and Moon H. Kim, MD, and their outstanding nationally and internationally recognized editorial board and reviewers. The journal has also been recognized as one of the 100 most influential journals in Biology & Medicine over the last 100 years, as determined by the BioMedical & Life Sciences Division of the Special Libraries Association (2009).
Elsevier is a world-leading provider of scientific, technical and medical information products and services. The company works in partnership with the global science and health communities to publish more than 2,000 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and close to 20,000 book titles, including major reference works from Mosby and Saunders. Elsevier’s online solutions include ScienceDirect, Scopus, Reaxys, ClinicalKey and Mosby’s Suite, which enhance the productivity of science and health professionals, and the SciVal suite and MEDai’s Pinpoint Review, which help research and health care institutions deliver better outcomes more cost-effectively.
A global business headquartered in Amsterdam, Elsevier employs 7,000 people worldwide. The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group plc, a world leading provider of professional information solutions. The group employs more than 30,000 people, including more than 15,000 in North America. Reed Elsevier Group plc is owned equally by two parent companies, Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. Their shares are traded on the London, Amsterdam and New York Stock Exchanges using the following ticker symbols: London: REL; Amsterdam: REN; New York: RUK and ENL.
+1 215 239 3249