British consultants' attitudes to caesareans

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 354-359

  Savage, W ^a,b   Francome, C ^a  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CSR; Litigation; No fault compensation; Operative skill; Optimum

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO PREGNANCY; CESAREAN SECTION; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COUNSELING; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MATERNAL ATTITUDE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKILL; UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CESAREAN SECTION; CONSULTANTS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; OBSTETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 34547207663     PISSN: 01443615     EISSN: 13646893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01443610701327354     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. 1997. Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology 73:1-4.
2. Barrett JFR, Jarvis GJ, MacDonald HN, Buchan PC, Tyrrell SN, Lilford RJ. 1990. Inconsistencies in clinical decisions in obstetrics. Lancet 336:549-551.
3. Birthchoice. 2006. Available at: www.birthchoice.org.uk
4. Commentaries. 1993. What is the correct caesarean section rate? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 100:403-404.
5. Department of Health. 1993. Changing Childbirth Report of the Expert Maternity Group chaired by Cumberlege, J. London: HMSO.
6. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991. Healthy People 2000. (PHS) 91-50212. Washington DC: DHHS Publications.
7. Francome C, Savage W. 1993. Caesarean section in Britain and the United States 12% or 24%: is either the right rate? Social Science Medicine 37:1199-1218.
8. General Medical Council. 1995. Good Medical Practice. London: GMC. p 4.
9. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S. 2000. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. The Lancet 356:1375-1383.
10. House of Commons. 1992. Health Select Committee Report. Maternity Services. Conclusions and Recommendations, Vols 1-3. Winterton Report. London: HMSO.
11. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1981. Cesarean childbirth. Report of a Consensus Development Conference 82-2067. Washington: US Institute of Health and Human Services.
12. Olah KS. 2005. Reversal of the decision for caesarean section in the second stage of labour on the basis of consultant vaginal assessment. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 25:115-116.
13. RCOG. 2004. Caesarean section: NICE Guidelines. London: RCOG Press.
14. Savage W. 1997. Is it so difficult to define an optimal caesarean section rate for a population. Health Policy Report for MSc in Public Health. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
15. Savage W, Francome C. 1993. British caesarean section rates: have we reached a plateau? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 100:493-406.
16. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. 2001. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. London: RCOG Press.
17. Turner M. 2006. The Term Breech Trial: are the clinical guidelines justified by the evidence? Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 26:491-494.
18. World Health Organization (WHO). 1985. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet ii:436-437.