A Prospective Study of the Efficiency of the "Code 333" Process at the Ottawa Hospital

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 244-251

  Amankwah, Yaa ^a   Caughey, Sharon ^a   Walker, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; Decision to delivery interval (DDI); Emergency; The Ottawa Hospital (TOH)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CODE 333 EMERGENCY CALL PROCESS; DAY OF THE WEEK; DECISION TO DELIVERY INTERVAL; EMERGENCY SURGERY; FEMALE; FETUS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; JAPAN; OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA; OBSTETRIC DELIVERY; OBSTETRIC EMERGENCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RESUSCITATION; SEQUENCE OF EVENT; THERAPY DELAY; TIME FACTOR; TIME OF DAY; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; EMERGENCY; FETUS DISTRESS; LABOR COMPLICATION; NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PRODUCTIVITY; TIME;

CESAREAN SECTION; EFFICIENCY; EMERGENCIES; FEMALE; FETAL DISTRESS; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 79961218389     PISSN: 17012163     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34825-3     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Professional Standards. Standards for obstetric-gynecologic services 1989, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Washington, DC.
2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Report of a joint working group: organisational standards for maternity services 1995, RCOG Press, London.
3. Indications for caesarean section: final statement of the Panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Caesarean Birth. CMAJ 1986, 134:1348-1352.
4. Ward C.J. Analysis of 500 obstetric and gynecologic malpractice claims: causes and prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991, 165:298-306.
5. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America Crossing the quality chasm 2001, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
6. Sayegh I., Dupuis O., Clement H.J., Rudigoz R.C. Evaluating the decision-to-delivery interval in emergency caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004, 116:28-33.
7. Lucas D.N., Yentis S.M., Kinsella S.M., Holdcroft A., May A.E., Wee M., et al. Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification. J R Soc Med 2000, 93:346-350.
8. MacKenzie I.Z., Cooke I. Prospective 12-month study of 30 minute decision to delivery intervals for "emergency" caesarean section. BMJ 2001, 322:1334-1335.
9. MacKenzie I.Z., Cooke I. What is a reasonable time from decision-to-delivery by caesarean section? Evidence from 41S deliveries. BJOG 2002, 109:498-504.
10. Tuffnell D.J., Wilkinson K., Beresford N. Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section-are current standards achievable? Observational case series. BMJ 2001, 322:1330-1333.
11. Spencer M.K., MacLennan A.H. How long does it take to deliver a baby by emergency caesarean section?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 41:7-11.
12. Helmy WH, Jolaoso AS, Ifaturoti OO, Afify SA, Jones MH. The decision-to-delivery interval for emergency caesarean section: is 30 minutes a realistic target? BJOG 109:505-8.
13. Bruce D., Stone S., Harding K. Evaluation of emergency caesarean sections-completion of the audit cycle in a Central London teaching hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002, 22:273-278.
14. Hillemanns P., Hasbargen U., Strauss A., Schulze A., Genzel-Boroviczeny O., Hepp H. Maternal and neonatal morbidity of emergency caesarean sections with a decision-to-delivery interval under 30 minutes: evidence from 10 years. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2003, 268:136-141.