{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,9]],"date-time":"2025-12-09T08:30:25Z","timestamp":1765269025722,"version":"3.46.0"},"reference-count":10,"publisher":"BMJ","issue":"6707","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[1989,10,28]],"date-time":"1989-10-28T00:00:00Z","timestamp":625536000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/www.bmj.com\/company\/legal-information\/terms-conditions\/legal-information\/tdm-licencepolicy"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMJ"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1989,10,28]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>OBJECTIVE--To audit the outcome of pregnancies booked for confinement in a general practitioner maternity unit in a district general hospital. DESIGN--Retrospective review of case records. SETTING--General practitioner maternity unit in a district general hospital. PATIENTS--685 Women referred to a general practitioner unit in 1987. RESULTS--315 Nulliparous women and 330 multiparous women were booked for confinement; 202 women transferred to consultant care before delivery and a further 104 during labour or after delivery. Recognised risk factors, other than nulliparity, rarely predicted the need for transfer. Confinement in the general practitioner unit was associated with low intervention and good fetal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS--The general practitioner maternity unit provides a safe alternative for confinement in low risk pregnancies. High rates of transfer deny this facility to many women who desire confinement in a low technology environment.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.299.6707.1090","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2009,4,2]],"date-time":"2009-04-02T15:19:55Z","timestamp":1238685595000},"page":"1090-1092","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":8,"title":["Outcome of pregnancies referred to a general practitioner maternity unit in a district hospital."],"prefix":"10.1136","volume":"299","author":[{"given":"A.","family":"Prentice","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"S. M.","family":"Walton","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"239","published-online":{"date-parts":[[1989,10,28]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"118","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1983.tb08894.x","article-title":"A comparison of low-risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care: shared care (consultant) and integrated general practice unit. I. Obstetrical procedures and neonatal outcome","volume":"90","author":"Klein, M.; Lloyd, I.; Redman, C.; Bull, M.; Turnbull, A.C.","year":"1983","unstructured":"Klein M, Lloyd I, Redman C, Bull M, Turnbull AC. A comparison of low-risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care: shared care (consultant) and integrated general practice unit. I. Obstetrical procedures and neonatal outcome. BrJ Obstet Gynaecol 1983;90:118-22.","journal-title":"BrJ Obstet Gynaecol"},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"123","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1983.tb08895.x","article-title":"A comparison of low-risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care: shared care (consultant) and integrated general practice unit. II. Labour and delivery management and neonatal outcome","volume":"90","author":"Klein, M.; Lloyd, I.; Redman, C.; Bull, M.; Turnbull, A.C.","year":"1983","unstructured":"Klein M, Lloyd I, Redman C, Bull M, Turnbull AC. A comparison of low-risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care: shared care (consultant) and integrated general practice unit. II. Labour and delivery management and neonatal outcome. BrJ Obstet Gynaecol 1983;90:123-8.","journal-title":"BrJ Obstet Gynaecol"},{"key":"ref_3","first-page":"1438","article-title":"Contribution of isolated general practitioner maternity units","volume":"288","author":"Cavenagh, A.J.M.; Phillips, K.M.; Sheridan, B.; Williams, E.M.J.","year":"1984","unstructured":"Cavenagh AJM, Phillips KM, Sheridan B, Williams EMJ. Contribution of isolated general practitioner maternity units. BrMedJ7 1984;288:1438-40."},{"key":"ref_4","first-page":"488","article-title":"Outcome of women booked into an isolated general practice maternity unit over eight years","volume":"37","author":"Garrett, T.; House, W.; Lowe, S.W.","year":"1987","unstructured":"Garrett T, House W, Lowe SW. Outcome of women booked into an isolated general practice maternity unit over eight years. J R Coll Gen Pract 1987;37:488-90.","journal-title":"J R Coll Gen Pract"},{"key":"ref_5","first-page":"744","article-title":"Are isolated maternity units run by general practitioners dangerous?","volume":"294","author":"Young, G.","year":"1987","unstructured":"Young G. Are isolated maternity units run by general practitioners dangerous? BrMedJ 1987;294:744-6.","journal-title":"BrMedJ"},{"key":"ref_6","first-page":"307","article-title":"General practitioner obstetrics: does risk prediction work?","volume":"38","author":"Reynolds, J.L.; Yudkin, P.L.; Bull, M.J.V.","year":"1988","unstructured":"Reynolds JL, Yudkin PL, Bull MJV. General practitioner obstetrics: does risk prediction work?J R Coll Gen Pract 1988;38:307-10.","journal-title":"J R Coll Gen Pract"},{"key":"ref_7","first-page":"1004","article-title":"Obstetric audit in general practice. Br MedJ7","volume":"ii:","author":"Marsh, G.N.","year":"1977","unstructured":"Marsh GN. Obstetric audit in general practice. Br MedJ7 1977;ii: 1004-6."},{"key":"ref_8","first-page":"1077","article-title":"Audit of 26 years of obstetrics in general practice","volume":"298","author":"Marsh, G.N.; Channing, D.M.","year":"1989","unstructured":"Marsh GN, Channing DM. Audit of 26 years of obstetrics in general practice. BrMedj 1989;298:1077-80.","journal-title":"BrMedj"},{"key":"ref_9","first-page":"1127","article-title":"Encouraging GP intranatal care","volume":"232","author":"Marsh, G.N.","year":"1988","unstructured":"Marsh GN. Encouraging GP intranatal care. Practitioner 1988;232:1127-31.","journal-title":"Practitioner"},{"article-title":"Report of the maternity services committee","author":"Ministry of Health","key":"ref_10","unstructured":"Ministry of Health. Report of the maternity services committee. London: HMSO, 1959. (Cranbrook committee report.)"}],"container-title":["BMJ"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/data.bmj.org\/tdm\/10.1136\/bmj.299.6707.1090","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/syndication.highwire.org\/content\/doi\/10.1136\/bmj.299.6707.1090","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,9]],"date-time":"2025-12-09T08:24:45Z","timestamp":1765268685000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/10.1136\/bmj.299.6707.1090"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[1989,10,28]]},"references-count":10,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6707","published-online":{"date-parts":[[1989,10,28]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1989,10,28]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1136\/bmj.299.6707.1090"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.299.6707.1090","relation":{},"ISSN":["0959-8138","1468-5833"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0959-8138"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1468-5833"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[1989,10,28]]}}}