Induction Time to Vaginal Delivery: A Comparison of Obstetric Coverage Models

Abstract

Objective

Induction of labor (IOL) and hospitalist coverage are becoming more common. While hospitalist coverage has been associated with improved maternal outcomes and lower cesarean delivery rates, its impact on IOL remains unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the induction time to vaginal delivery across three obstetric coverage models: hospitalists, faculty generalists, and private practice generalists.

Study Design

This single-site retrospective cohort study analyzed singleton, term (≥39 weeks), vertex patients undergoing IOL at NYU Langone Hospital-Long Island from January 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022. Hospitalists at this institution managed high-risk obstetric patients, including those under maternal–fetal medicine care, resident clinic, and unregistered patients who presented to labor and delivery, along with serving as labor and delivery safety officer on the labor floor. Faculty and private practice generalists managed their respective groups. Outcomes included induction time to vaginal delivery, mode of delivery, induction methods, and maternal and neonatal complications. Statistical analyses included chi-square, ANOVA, and multivariable linear regression. A p-value of < 0.05 was statistically significant.

Results

Among 403 patients, 92 (22.8%) were managed by hospitalists, 115 (28.5%) by faculty, and 196 (48.6%) by private generalists. Median (IQR) induction-to-delivery times were similar across groups: hospitalists 20.5 (15.3–27.5) hours, faculty 23.4 (16.5–31.1) hours, and private 19.7 (14.1–25.6) hours (p = 0.004). However, when limited to vaginal deliveries, no significant difference was observed in induction-to-vaginal-delivery time (p = 0.17). Private generalists had the shortest induction-to-cesarean time and time to membrane rupture leading to cesarean. There were no differences in intrapartum or postpartum complications. Hospitalists had more NICU admissions after vaginal delivery, mostly unrelated to labor.

Conclusion

Induction-to-vaginal delivery times and complication rates were similar across coverage models, but differences in NICU admissions and cesarean delivery times highlight care variations. Collaboration and evidence-based standardized induction protocols may optimize outcomes across coverage models.

Key Points

• Induction to vaginal delivery time can be similar across obstetric groups.

• Labor and delivery units with high induction rates may benefit from hospitalists.

• An evidence-based induction protocol may optimize maternal and fetal outcomes.

Keywords

IOL - labor - delivery hospitalists - vaginal delivery - induction time

Publication History

Received: 09 August 2025

Accepted: 20 November 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 November 2025

Article published online:
04 December 2025

• References

• 1 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
• 2 Nethery E, Levy B, McLean K, Sitcov K, Souter VL. Effects of the ARRIVE (a randomized trial of induction versus expectant management) trial on elective induction and obstetric outcomes in term nulliparous patients. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 142 (02) 242-250
• 3 Wood R, Freret TS, Clapp M, Little S. Rates of induction of labor at 39 weeks and cesarean delivery following publication of the ARRIVE Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (08) e2328274-e2328274
• 4 The Obstetric and Gynecologic Hospitalist Committee Opinion No. Committee opinion no. 657: the obstetric and gynecologic hospitalist. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127 (02) e81-e85
• 5 Torbenson VE, Tatsis V, Bradley SL. et al. Use of obstetric and gynecologic hospitalists is associated with decreased severe maternal morbidity in the United States. J Patient Saf 2023; 19 (03) 202-210
• 6 Iriye BK, Huang WH, Condon J. et al. Implementation of a laborist program and evaluation of the effect upon cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (03) 251.e1-251.e6
• 7 Suresh SC, Kucirka L, Chau DB, Hadley M, Sheffield JS. Evidence-based protocol decreases time to vaginal delivery in elective inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021; 3 (01) 100294
• 8 Krolikowski-Ulmer K, Watson TJ, Westhoff EM, Ashmore SL, Thompson PA, Landeen LB. The collaborative laborist and midwifery model: an accepted and sustainable model. S D Med 2018; 71 (12) 534-537