A survey of obstetricians' views on placental pathology reporting. Issue 3 (13th March 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Walsh, Colin A.; McAuliffe, Fionnuala M.; Turowski, Gitta; Roald, Borghild; Mooney, Eoghan E.
• Is Part Of: International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics. Volume 121:Issue 3(2013)
• Page Start: 275
• Page End: 277
• Publication Date: 2013-03-13
• Subjects: Classification -- Placenta -- Stillbirth; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.01.008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-7292

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To determine the opinion of clinical obstetricians regarding interpretation of placental reports, including a recently proposed Norwegian classification system. Methods: Paper and online surveys were circulated to practicing obstetricians in Ireland. Data on clinician experience, clinical workload, and exposure to placental pathology reporting were collated. Additionally, clinicians' opinions regarding the Norwegian classification system were sought. Statistical analysis was performed using Statsdirect version 2.7.8. Results: Sixty‐two practicing clinical obstetricians completed the survey. Overall, 47 (75.8%) respondents had at least 5 years of experience in clinical obstetrics. The population surveyed had a high level of clinicopathologic exposure, with 55 (88.7%) regularly attending a perinatal morbidity conference and 57 (91.9%) reading placental pathology reports. A significantly higher proportion of experienced clinicians read placental pathology reports (46/47 [97.9%]) compared with clinicians with less experience (11/15 [73.3%]; P = 0.01). Overall, 51 (82.3%) obstetricians believed that introduction of the Norwegian classification would improve interpretation of placental findings; this high acceptance rate was similar for both experienced and less experienced clinicians ( P > 0.99). Conclusion: The Norwegian classification system is a clinician‐friendly system for placental pathology reporting.