PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6108458

How safe is general practitioner obstetrics?

G W Taylor·W Edgar·B A Taylor·D G Neal
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The high perinatal mortality among infants of women transferred from general practitioner to consultant care is well known, the implication being that if these women had been booked for consultant care several of the deaths might not have occurred. The findings of this study indicate that booking into a consultant unit did not reduce perinatal mortality and suggest that, where liaison between hospital and general practitioners is good and transfer easy, booking into a general practitioner maternity unit can be as safe for low-risk women as booking into a consultant unit.

Explore related subjects

EnglandFamily PracticeFemaleFetal DeathHospitalizationHumansInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornObstetric Labor ComplicationsObstetricsPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPuerperal DisordersReferral and ConsultationRiskJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G W Taylor, W Edgar, B A Taylor, D G Neal. 1980-12-13. How safe is general practitioner obstetrics?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(80)92348-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy.

Both the UK's Labour Government and Scotland's devolved Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive have committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. Furthermore, both institutions have emphasised the importance of using evidence to inform policy responses. In light of such political commitments, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of health inequalities in order to: (i) review the available research evidence; (ii) assess the extent to which policies have been based on this research evidence; and (iii) evaluate the success (or failure) of policies to tackle health inequalities. Yet so far only limited attention has been given to exploring how key actors involved in research-policy dialogues understand the processes involved. In an attempt to address this gap, this article draws on data from semi-structured interviews with 58 key actors in the field of health inequalities research and policymaking in the UK to argue that it is ideas, rather than research evidence, which have travelled from research into policy. The descriptions of the varying journeys of these ideas fit three types--successful, partial and fractured--each of which is outlined with reference to one example. The paper then employs existing theories about research-policy relations and the movement of ideas in an attempt to illuminate and better understand the contrasting journeys. In the concluding discussion, it is argued that the third approach, which focuses on the entrepreneurial processes involved in the marketing of ideas, is most helpful in understanding the research findings, but that this needs to be discussed in relation to the political context within which negotiations take place.

England↗