Obstetrical Anal Sphincter Injuries: Does Obstetrical Care Provider Matter? A Quality Assurance Study in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the rates of obstetrical anal sphincter tears (OASIS) between types of obstetrical care providers at Kingston General Hospital (KGH) and in Ontario via the Better Outcomes Registry Network (BORN). METHODS: This cross-sectional study collected patient, demographic, and delivery data from all vaginal deliveries at KGH from June 2011 to June 2014 and all vaginal deliveries through the BORN database from June 2012 to June 2014. RESULTS: During this period, 4.6% and 3.5% of all vaginal deliveries at KGH and in Ontario, respectively, were complicated by OASIS. The OASIS' rates were not statistically different between admitting care providers at KGH: 4.9%, 3.8%, and 3.7% of vaginal deliveries by obstetricians, family physicians, and midwives, respectively, in contrast to a higher rate of OASIS in women admitted under midwifery care in the province-wide data: 3.4%, 3.2%, and 4.4% for obstetricians, family physicians, and midwives, respectively. The rate of OASIS in patients who had an intrapartum transfer of care (TOC) from a family physician or midwife to an obstetrician was 13.8% at KGH, and 13.6% as reported by BORN, significantly higher than 3.8% (KGH) or 2.9% (BORN) in those who remained under the family physician, or midwife. The relative risk of OASIS in women transferred to an obstetrician compared to those who were admitted and delivered by an obstetrician was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.3, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Only when an intrapartum TOC is needed does the OASIS rate substantially increase, reflecting the underlying indication for TOC is leading to more intervention associated with risk of OASIS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".