ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2025
Did the introduction of an electronic booking form for elective caesarean section improve compliance with guidelines for gestational age at delivery?
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Preterm Birth Collaborative in Australia aims to reduce unnecessary preterm and early-term deliveries, addressing preterm birth as a leading cause of infant mortality and long-term disability. Mater Mother's Hospital (MMH), a tertiary obstetric centre, participates in the national 'Every Week Counts' initiative to minimize unnecessary early-term caesarean sections (CSs). Elective CS before 39 weeks raises the risk of neonatal intensive care unit admissions and developmental delays. MMH introduced an electronic CS booking form to improve compliance with clinical guidelines for gestational age at birth and to reduce unwarranted clinical variation.
methodsA single-centre retrospective audit analysed CS data prior to and post implementing the electronic booking form. Data from 3 months pre- and 3 months post- were extracted from hospital records, assessing demographics, clinical indication, and compliance with national or hospital guidelines. The booking form, created with OnBase software, provided a recommended delivery window based on risk factors, requiring justification for deviations. Compliance with guidelines and rates of unplanned labour before scheduled CS were assessed.
resultsSix months of CS were reviewed, among 1059 screened patients, 557 elective CS cases were assessed, with 283 pre-implementation and 274 post-implementation. Overall compliance with clinical guidelines improved from 90.5% to 94.5% (P = .06). A significant improvement was observed in patients with maternal or foetal risk factors, increasing compliance from 86.8% to 93.3% (P = .04). Compliance among low-risk patients remained high (95.2% pre-implementation vs. 96.8% post-implementation, P = .52). The proportion of CS cases presenting with spontaneous rupture of membranes (SROM) or labour before the scheduled procedure remained unchanged (23.6% vs. 24.8%, P = .75).
conclusionThe introduction of an electronic CS booking form in conjunction to clinical prioritization improved compliance with clinical guidelines for recommended gestational age at time of delivery, particularly for patients with maternal or neonatal risk factors. While the booking form did not significantly impact overall compliance or the rate of patients presenting with SROM or in labour requiring emergency CS, it highlights the valuable role of digital innovation in reducing unwarranted clinical variation. Future research should explore broader implementation across various healthcare settings.
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.