Attitudes of Clinicians and Patient Safety Culture Before and After the ARRIVE Trial

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the attitudes of intrapartum clinicians about elective induction of labor before and after A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE) and to assess the effect of different attitudes on patient safety culture. DesignRepeated cross-sectional design. SettingOnline surveys. ParticipantsClinicians (883 nurses and 201 physicians in the before-ARRIVE group and 1,741 nurses and 574 physicians in the after-ARRIVE group) who provided intrapartum care at 35 hospitals in California in 2017 and 57 hospitals in Michigan in 2020 and participated in statewide quality improvement efforts to reduce use of cesarean. MethodsWe used annual nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean rates to stratify hospitals into performance quartiles. We used cumulative proportional odds logistic regression to examine induction attitudes before and after ARRIVE by role and hospital performance quartile as well as induction attitudes and patient safety culture among clinicians. We used content analysis to examine qualitative data. ResultsAfter ARRIVE, physicians’ attitudes shifted in favor of induction at hospitals within the top three performance categories (top quartile: M = 3.48 vs. 2.81, p < .0001), whereas nurses’ attitudes did not change (p = .388). After ARRIVE, attitudes among clinicians were more aligned at hospitals with stronger patient safety cultures. Qualitative themes included The Timing of Induction is Important, Who Should Have Inductions, Need for Clear Protocols and More Staff, and Ideas to Improve the Induction of Labor Process. ConclusionPhysician attitudes about induction were significantly different before versus after ARRIVE, whereas nurse attitudes were not. Differences in attitudes may erode the quality of team-based care; intentional interdisciplinary engagement is essential when implementing ARRIVE findings.