ArticleCureus2024
A Survey of Obstetric Anaesthesia Services and Practices in the United Kingdom.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Obstetric anaesthesia for caesarean section in Central Europe: a prospective population-weighted binational audit (OBAAMA-COV Study).Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Clinical practices in general anaesthesia for caesarean section: A nationwide cross-sectional survey.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026Article
- Snapshot of Obstetric National Audit and Research Project (SONAR1): aprotocol for an international observational cohort study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Variability in obstetric anaesthetia practice and care delivered within the UK is under-explored. The ObsQoR study explored structures, processes, and outcomes of obstetric anaesthesia in 107 hospitals within the UK's National Health Service, and the results of the hospital-level survey are reported here. Methods Hospitals were surveyed to assess obstetric anaesthesia provision, practice, and care delivery. Questions explored staffing, service provision and training, facilities present, clinical practices, outcome measurement, and key indicators of quality in obstetric anaesthesia. Results We received responses from 106 participating hospitals, representing 69% of all UK obstetric units. One hundred (94%) hospitals had a dedicated consultant obstetric anaesthetist within working hours, with 27 (25%) of hospitals' duty anaesthetists having additional clinical responsibilities outside the care of obstetric patients outside of working hours. Around 102 hospitals (98%) offer multidisciplinary team training, of which 95 (93%) use a simulation-based method. Dedicated high-risk antenatal clinics were present in 50 (47%) hospitals. The majority of hospitals provide written patient information in multiple languages for discussing obstetric anaesthesia options (77, 82%). Seventy-three hospitals (69%) use point-of-care testing to estimate haemoglobin concentration. Labour epidural analgesia is most commonly delivered via patient-controlled epidural analgesia in 80 (76%) hospitals, and the incidence of post-dural puncture headaches was recorded by 80 (76%) hospitals. Conclusions These results demonstrate variation in the provision of staffing, facilities, clinical practices, and outcome measurements across the UK. To deliver safe and equitable care across the UK, there needs to be standardisation of anaesthetic peripartum care based on national recommendations and the benchmarking and measurement of appropriate markers of quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.