Thomas Ivester
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Thomas Ivester.
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics | 2012
Emmanuel Srofenyoh; Thomas Ivester; Cyril Engmann; Adeyemi J. Olufolabi; Laurel Bookman; Medge D. Owen
To reduce maternal and neonatal death at a large regional hospital through the use of quality improvement methodologies.
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics | 2013
Nino Ninidze; Sarah G. Bodin; Thomas Ivester; Lisa Councilman; Brittany Clyne; Medge D. Owen
To determine whether an integrated program of clinical education and improvement methods regarding the safe use of regional anesthesia for obstetrics would result in improved and sustained practice change in Georgia.
Journal of Perinatology | 2013
Sofia Aliaga; Wayne A. Price; Martin McCaffrey; Thomas Ivester; Kim Boggess; Sue Tolleson-Rinehart
Objective:Late-preterm (LPT) neonates account for over 70% of all preterm births in the US. Approximately 60% of LPT births are the result of non-spontaneous deliveries. The optimal timing of delivery for many obstetric conditions at LPT gestations is unclear, likely resulting in obstetric practice variation. The purpose of this study is to identify variation in the obstetrical management of LPT pregnancies.Study Design:We surveyed obstetrical providers in North Carolina identified from North Carolina Medical Board and North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society membership lists. Participants answered demographic questions and six multiple-choice vignettes on management of LPT pregnancies.Result:We obtained 215/859 (29%) completed surveys which are as follows: 167 (78%) from obstetrics/gynecology, 27 (13%) from maternal–fetal medicine, and 21 (10%) from family medicine physicians. Overall, we found more agreement on respondents’ management of chorioamnionitis (97% would proceed with delivery), mild pre-eclampsia (84% would delay delivery/expectantly manage) and fetal growth restriction (FGR) (80% would delay delivery/expectantly manage). We found less agreement on the management of severe preeclampsia (71% would proceed with delivery), premature preterm rupture of membranes (69% would proceed with delivery) and placenta previa (67% would delay delivery/expectantly manage). Management of LPT pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes, FGR and placenta previa vary by specialty.Conclusion:Obstetrical providers report practice variation in the management of LPT pregnancies. Variation might be influenced by provider specialty. The absence of widespread agreement on best practice might be a source of modifiable LPT birth.
Maternal and Child Health Journal | 2013
Sofia Aliaga; P. Brian Smith; Wayne A. Price; Thomas Ivester; Kim Boggess; Sue Tolleson-Rinehart; Martin McCaffrey; Matthew M. Laughon
Late preterm (LPT) neonates (34 0/7th–36 6/7th weeks’ gestation) account for 70% of all premature births in the United States. LPT neonates have a higher morbidity and mortality risk than term neonates. LPT birth rates vary across geographic regions. Unwarranted variation is variation in medical care that cannot be explained by sociodemographic or medical risk factors; it represents differences in health system performance, including provider practice variation. The purpose of this study is to identify regional variation in LPT births in North Carolina that cannot be explained by sociodemographic or medical/obstetric risk factors. We searched the NC State Center for Health Statistics linked birth–death certificate database for all singleton term and LPT neonates born between 1999 and 2006. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to control for socio-demographic and medical/obstetric risk factors. The main outcome was the percent of LPT birth in each of the six perinatal regions in North Carolina. We identified 884,304 neonates; 66,218 (7.5%) were LPT. After multivariable logistic regression, regions 2 (7.0%) and 6 (6.6%) had the highest adjusted percent of LPT birth. Analysis of a statewide birth cohort demonstrates regional variation in the incidence of LPT births among NC’s perinatal regions after adjustment for sociodemographic and medical risk factors. We speculate that provider practice variation might explain some of the remaining difference. This is an area where policy changes and quality improvement efforts can help reduce variation, and potentially decrease LPT births.
American Journal of Perinatology | 2013
Sofia Aliaga; Kim Boggess; Thomas Ivester; Wayne A. Price
OBJECTIVE Examine variation in short-term outcomes of late preterm births (34(0/7)-36(6/7) weeks) between a university teaching hospital, teaching community hospital, and nonteaching community hospital. STUDY DESIGN Review of maternal and newborn data from a random sample of late preterm births at three hospitals in North Carolina from 2008 to 2009. Outcomes included length of stay, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, respiratory support, antibiotic exposure, phototherapy exposure, and hypoglycemia. RESULTS We analyzed data from 331 singleton late preterm newborns: 93 (28.1%) from a university teaching hospital, 110 (33.2%) from a teaching community hospital, and 128 (38.7%) from a nonteaching community hospital. Mean gestational age did not vary between hospitals. NICU admission, exposure to antibiotics, and phototherapy were more common at the university teaching hospital after controlling for risk factors, yet length of stay was shortest at the university teaching hospital and longest at the teaching community hospital after adjustment. CONCLUSION Practice variation contributes to differences in length of stay, NICU admission, and exposure to antibiotics and phototherapy among late preterm newborns. Differences in practice during the birth hospitalization may affect outcomes and health care utilization (e.g., readmission) after discharge.
Seminars in Perinatology | 2015
Marcela C. Smid; Yusuf Ahmed; Thomas Ivester
Induction of labor in resource-limited settings has the potential to significantly improve health outcomes for both mothers and infants. However, there are relatively little context-specific data to guide practice, and few specific guidelines. Also, there may be considerable issues regarding the facilities and organizational capacities necessary to support safe practices in many aspects of obstetrical practice, and for induction of labor in particular. Herein we describe the various opportunities as well as challenges presented by induction of labor in these settings.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology | 2005
Lorena Benavides; Jennifer M. Wu; Andrew F. Hundley; Thomas Ivester; Anthony G. Visco
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology | 2015
M.T. Siedhoff; Lauren D. Schiff; Janelle K. Moulder; Tarek Toubia; Thomas Ivester
BMJ Innovations | 2015
Asta Sorensen; Jon Poehlman; John Bollenbacher; Scott Riggan; Stan Davis; Kristi Miller; Thomas Ivester; Leila C. Kahwati
Obstetric Anesthesia Digest | 2013
Emmanuel Srofenyoh; Thomas Ivester; Cyril Engmann; Adeyemi J. Olufolabi; Laurel Bookman; Medge D. Owen