Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Specialists’ View on Segregating Obstetrics and Gynecology

Shikha Rani, Alka Sehgal, Dilpreet K Pandher, Rimpy Tandon

Keywords : Attitude, Observational study, Obstetric and gynecology

Citation Information : Rani S, Sehgal A, Pandher DK, Tandon R. Specialists’ View on Segregating Obstetrics and Gynecology. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2020; 12 (6):387-390.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1841

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 12-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: Presently care to all women is given under the single umbrella of obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics is a very demanding field with unpredictable working hours and less social life. That is why over the career line many doctors leave obstetrics and go for gynecology practice. This trend has increased over the years which can affect the future workforce. Laborist model of care has been proposed to overcome this. But segregating obstetrics and gynecology can give a permanent solution to the future workforce. To evaluate this hypothesis, a survey was done to gather the opinion of obstetrics–gynecology specialists on the perceived need, benefits, and harms of separating obstetrics and gynecology. Material and methods: This was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study conducted from September 2016 to May 2018. Enrolled subjects were the obstetrician and gynecologists who have completed their postgraduation. A questionnaire was prepared using Google forms, keeping in view all the aspects of study. Obstetricians and gynecologists were contacted by mail, Facebook and WhatsApp groups, or in person to fill the pro forma. Stata was used to analyze the data. Mean was calculated for continuous variables and proportions for discrete variables. Analysis was performed to evaluate any relation of age, years of experience, or type of workplace from the viewpoint of segregating the branch. Results: One hundred sixty-seven responses were received. Mean age was 39.4 ± 10.3 years. Thirty-seven percent had 15 years of experience in obstetrics and gynecology. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents were practicing both fields. Doctors for and against the segregation of obstetrics and gynecology were 55% and 39%, respectively. Main reasons for the segregation were delivering better medical care, increased scope of subspecialization, and improved knowledge and skills of doctors. Others cited that obstetrics and gynecology are very much interrelated branches so cannot be separated. If already separated fields, 65% (48/137) would have opted gynecology and 35% (48/137) obstetrics. However, no difference was found in the preference for or against the segregation of medical field by age, years of experience, or the type of workplace (government/private). Conclusion: Medical fraternity feels the need for segregating obstetrics and gynecology.


PDF Share
  1. Gelis J. History of childbirth. Boston: Northeastern University Press; 1991, pp. 96–98.
  2. Bynum WF, Porter R (eds.) Companion encyclopedia of the history of medicine. London and New York: Routledge; 1993, pp. 1050–1052.
  3. Peterson R. The future of obstetrics and gynecology as a specialty. JAMA 1920;74:1361–1364. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1920.02620200001001.
  4. Merrill J. (Sub)specialization in obstetrics and gynecology: results of a survey by The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:550–558. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(87)90048-2.
  5. Rayburn WF, Gant NF, Gilstrap LC, et al. Pursuit of accredited subspecialties by graduating residents in obstetrics and gynecology, 2000–2012. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:619–625. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265ab0a.
  6. Jackson C, Ball JE, Hirsh W, et al. Informing choices: the need for career advice in medical training. Cambridge/Birmingham: National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling; 2002. Retrieved on January 9, 2018. Available from: http://www.crac.org.uk/CMS/files/upload/nicec_informingchoices_medicaltrainig_report
  7. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. London. The future role of the consultant: A working party report. Retrieved on January 8, 2018. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/the-future-role-of-the-consultant
  8. Zuspan FP, Sachs L. The impact of subspecialties on obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:747–753. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(88)90067-1.
  9. Ludwig H. Subspecialization in gynecology and obstetrics: advantages and disadvantages. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991;41:31–35. DOI: 10.1016/0028-2243(91)90316-d.
  10. Pandey U, Lindow S. Should obstetrics and gynaecology be separate specialities? A survey of Yorkshire trainees. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;26:305–306. DOI: 10.1080/01443610600594807.
  11. NHS Confederation. Survey of models of maternity care. London: The NHS Confederation; 2004.
  12. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement: imposition of junior doctor's contract. Retrieved on January 11, 2018. Available from: www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/rcogstatement-imposition-of-junior-doctors-contract
  13. Goldacre MJ, Laxton L, Lambert TW. Medical graduates’ early career choices of specialty and their eventual specialty destinations: UK prospective cohort studies. BMJ 2010;341:c3199. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c3199.
  14. Gafson I, Currie J, O'Dwyer S, et al. Attitudes towards attrition among UK trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology. Br J Hosp Med 2017;78:344–348. DOI: 10.12968/hmed.2017.78.6.344.
  15. Weinstein L. The laborist: a new focus of practice for the obstetrician. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:310–312. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.133.
  16. Srinivas SK, Lorch SA. The laborist model of obstetric care: we need more evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:30–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.009.
  17. Iriye BK. Impact of obstetrician/gynecologist hospitalists on quality of obstetric care (cesarean delivery rates, trial of labor after cesarean/vaginal birth after cesarean rates, and neonatal adverse events). Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2015;42:477–485. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2015.05.006.
  18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Patient Safety and Quality Improvement; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee Opinion No. 657 summary: the obstetric and gynecologic hospitalist. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:419. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001310.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.