A complaint of decreased fetal movements is a common indication for the assessment of fetal well being. The aim of this study was to review the outcome of a group of women whose primary indication for referral was decreased fetal movements. Over a 20 month period, 435 patients were seen in the fetal assessment unit of an inner London teaching hospital, following a primary complaint of reduced fetal movements. Investigations included: the fetal abdominal circumference (AC), amniotic fluid volume (AFV), the umbilical artery pulsatility index (UAPI) derived from Doppler ultrasound waveforms and a computerised analysis of fetal heart rate (FHR) recordings or cardiotocograph (CTG). Outcome measures were: gestational age at delivery, Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes, admission to the Special Care Baby Unit (SCBU), the need for delivery by an emergency cesarean section for fetal compromise (CSFC), and any perinatal deaths. A comparison of actual versus expected outcome for women with decreased fetal movement revealed the following relative risks, with the 95% confidence intervals (CI) in brackets; low 5 minute Apgar score 0.03 vs. 0.05 expected (CI = 0.01, 0.05), SCBU admission, 0.06 vs. 0.07 (0.04, 0.08), and preterm delivery, 0.08 vs. 0.11 (0.05, 0.10). Cesarean sections for fetal compromise, 0.07 vs. 0.053 (0.050-0.096). The addition of FHR monitoring to standard ultrasound assessment of well being did not appear to confer any added benefit. There were no fetal deaths. The outcome for pregnancies where the mother presents with decreased fetal movements in the third trimester is comparable with the outcome for the general population.

The practice of anesthesia includes multiple competing practice models, including services delivered by anesthesiologists, independent practice by certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and team-based approaches incorporating anesthesiologist supervision or direction of CRNAs. Despite data demonstrating very low risk of death and complications associated with anesthesia, debate among professional societies and policymakers persists over the superiority or equivalence among these models. The American Society of Anesthesiologists uses published findings as evidence for claims that anesthesia is safer when anesthesiologists lead in providing care. The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists cites its own research on safety and cost-efficiency outcomes to defend against these claims. We review and critique studies of the safety outcomes and cost-effectiveness of anesthesia delivery that have been cited in the Federal Trade Commission comment letters related to competition in health care, where each profession has laid out their case for how they ought to be recognized in the market for anesthesia services. The Federal Trade Commission has a role in protecting consumers from anticompetitive conduct that has the potential to impact quality and cost in health care. Thus, it is important to evaluate the evidence used to make claims about these topics. We argue that while research in this area is imperfect, the strong safety record of anesthesia in general and CRNAs in particular suggest that politics and professional interests are the main drivers of supervision policy in anesthesia delivery.

No abstract