Controversy between anesthesiologists and obstetricians on the labour ward: the Delphi method is used as a consensus-building technique

Abstract

Purpose: Obstetricians and anesthesiologists may interpret medical evidence differently, which could potentially generate conflict and compromise patient care. We sought to identify the most important controversial topics involving obstetricians and anesthesiologists on the labour ward that had the potential to affect patient outcome. Methods: We conducted a consensus-building study based on the Delphi technique. A panel of experts comprised of obstetric anesthesiologists and obstetricians responded to a series of four parallel sequential questionnaires interspersed with feedback. The first round consisted of an open questionnaire: Which topics in patient management would rouse a difference of opinion between anesthesiologists and obstetricians that may interfere with patient outcome, and why? The second round sought agreement on the topics, and the third round sought to rank the topics, and their underlying reasons, that scored at least 60% agreement. The final round allowed each discipline insight into the controversies gathered by the other discipline. Results: Ten anesthesiologists and ten obstetricians participated in the study. Anesthesiologists identified twice as many controversial topics as the obstetricians (six vs three, respectively). The obstetricians agreed with all topics identified by the anesthesiologists, but agreed with only five of the 18 (28%) reasons to support them. Anesthesiologists agreed with all topics raised by the obstetricians, but agreed with only three of the six (50%) reasons to support them. Conclusions: Both the obstetricians and the anesthesiologists identified several controversial topics that may influence clinical practice on the labour ward. This information could serve as the basis to develop educational programs and strategies to improve communication between the two disciplines.