Does a maternal-fetal medicine-centered labor and delivery coverage model put the 'M' back in MFM?

Objective Maternal morbidity is increasing in the United States. Our objectives were to examine whether a labor and delivery (L&D) provider model with regular maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) coverage decreases the rates of maternal morbidity during delivery hospitalizations and has an impact on obstetrician-gynecologist residents' perceptions of safety and education. Study Design We performed a retrospective cohort study to compare the rates of maternal morbidity before and after the implementation of an MFM-centered coverage model on L&D. Outcomes were identified using International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, codes. The primary outcome was a composite of severe maternal morbidity. Additionally, obstetrician-gynecologist residents completed an anonymous survey asking them to compare coverage models, and their Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology examination scores were compared. Results Data from 4715 deliveries were included. There were no differences in composite morbidity or individual adverse outcomes. Most residents (81.3%) preferred the new provider model, with median 5-point Likert scores indicating perceived increases in safety and education. Mean Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology scores improved in the 18 residents exposed to both models. Conclusion Although the MFM-centered provider model appears to have had a positive impact on residents' perceptions of safety and education, it was not associated with significant changes in severe maternal morbidity.