The rising caesarean section rate: A loss of obstetric skill?

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 339-346

  Savage, W ^a,b  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRTH RATE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DYSTOCIA; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INTRAUTERINE GROWTH RETARDATION; MATERNAL CARE; MATERNAL MORTALITY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; OBSTETRICS; PERINATAL MORTALITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVATE PRACTICE; PUBLIC HEALTH; SKILL; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; UTERUS RUPTURE; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY;

EID: 34547219955     PISSN: 01443615     EISSN: 13646893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01443610701337916     Document Type: Editorial

References (77)

1. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. 2006. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 108:235-237.
2. ACOG. 1999. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG. Practice Bulletin No. 5. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
3. Armstrong P, Feldman S. 1986. A midwife's story. New York: Arbor House.
4. Banta HD, Thacker SB. 1979. Policies toward medical technology: the case of electronic fetal monitoring. American Journal of Public Health 69:931-935.
5. Bewley S, Cockburn J. 2002. The unfacts of 'request' caesarean section. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 109:597-605.
6. Birthchoice. 2006. Online. Available at: www.birthchoice.org.uk
7. Bloomfield T. 2006. Caesarean section, NICE guidelines and management of labour. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 24:485-490.
8. Boyd C, Francome C. 1981. One birth in nine. London: Maternity Alliance.
9. Butler NR, Bonham DG. 1963. Perinatal mortality. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone.
10. Carvel J. 2006. 43 maternity units under 'threat'. BBC News 12/12/2006. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/ft/-/1/hi/health/6169475.stm
11. Chamberlain G, Wraight A, Crowley P, eds. 1997. Home births. The report of the 1994 confidential enquiry by the National Birthday Trust Fund. New York: Parthenon.
12. Chamberlain R, Chamberlain G, Howlett B, Claireaux A. 1975. British Births 1970. Vol. 1. The First Week of Life. London: William Heinemann.
13. Churchill H, Savage W, Francome C. 2006. Caesarean birth in Britain. London: Middlesex University Press.
14. Churchill H. 1997. Caesarean birth experience, practice and history. Manchester: Books for Midwives Press.
15. Clarke SC, Taffel SM. 1995. Changes in cesarean delivery in the United States, 1988-1993. Birth 22:63-67.
16. Cronk M. 1998. Keep your hands off that breech. Aims Journal 10. Available at: http://www.aims/journal/vol10no3/handOffbreech/htm
17. DeMott RK, Sandmire HF. 1990. The Green Bay cesarean section study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 162:1593-1602.
18. DHHS. 1991. Healthy People 2000. (PHS) 91-50212. Washington DC: Department of Health and Human Services Publications.
19. DoH. 1997. NHS maternity statistics, England: 1989-1990 to 1994-1995. London: Department of Health.
20. DoH. 2004. National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. London: Department of Health.
21. Durand AM. 1992. The safety of home birth: the farm study. American Journal of Public Health 82:450-452.
22. FIGO Ethics Committee. 1999. Ethical Aspects regarding caesarean delivery for non-medical reasons. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 64:317-322.
23. Flamm BL, Berwich DM, Kabcenell A. 1998. Reducing cesarean section rates safely: lessons from a 'breakthrough series' collaborative. Birth 25:117-124.
24. Gamble JA, Health M, Creedy DK. 2000. Women's request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth 27:256-263.
25. Ghaem-Maghami S, Brockbank E, Bridges J. 2006. Survey of surgical experience during training in obstetrics and gynaecology in the UK. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 26:197-301.
26. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D et al. 2006. PREMODA Study Group. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 194:1002-1011.
27. Grant A, O'Brien N, Joy T, Hennessy E, MacDonald D. 1989. Cerebral palsy among children born during the Dublin randomised trial of intrapartum electronic fetal rate monitoring. Lancet ii:1233-1235.
28. Green JM, Coupland VA, Kitzinger JV. 1988. Great expectations: a prospective study of women's expectations and experiences of childbirth. Child Care and Development Group, Cambridge.
29. Griffiths AN, Avasarala S, Wiener JJ. 2005. A prospective observational study of emergency caesarean section rates and the effect of the labour ward experience. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 25:666-668.
30. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD. 2004. Births: preliminary data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports 53:1-7.
31. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AK. 2000. Planned Caesarean Section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 356:1375-1383.
32. HoC. 2003. House of Commons Health Select Committee. Fourth report, House of Commons. Available: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/ cmselect/cmhealth/464/48404/htm (Accessed 28 September 2006).
33. IMA. 2006. Community Midwifery Model. Independent Midwives Association. Available at: www.independentmidvives.org.uk/article155.html
34. Joffe J, Chapple J, Patterson C, Beard R. 1994. What is the optimal caesarean section rate? An outcome based study of existing variation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 48:406-411.
35. Johnson N, Ansell D. 1995. Variation in caesarean and instrumental delivery rates in New Zealand hospitals. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 35:469-470.
36. Joint Committee of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist, London and Population Investigation Committee, New York. 1948. Maternity in Great Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Joyce R, Webb R, Peacock J. 2002. Predictors of obstetric intervention rates: case-mix, staffing levels and organisational factors of hospital of birth. Obstetrics and Gynecology 22:618-625.
38. Kiwanuka AI, Moore M. 1987. The changing incidence of caesarean section in the health district of Central Manchester. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 94:440-444.
39. Kotaska A. 2004. Inappropriate use of randomized trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery. British Medical Journal 329:1039-1042.
40. MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. 2006. Infant and Neonatal Mortality for Primary Cesarean and Vaginal Births to Women with 'No Indicated Risk', United States, 1998-2001 Birth Cohorts. Birth 33:175-182.
41. Macfarlane A. 1998. At last-maternity statistics for England. British Medical Journal 316:566-567.
42. McDonald D, Grant A, Sheridan-Pereira M et al. 1985. The Dublin randomised trial of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 152:154-159.
43. McMahon MJ. 1996. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. New England Journal of Medicine 335:689-695.
44. Myers SA, Gleicher N. 1988. A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. New England Journal of Medicine 319:1511-1516.
45. National Childbirth Trust, Royal College of Midwives and Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. 2006. Modernising Maternity Care: A Commissioning Toolkit for England. 2nd ed. Available at: www.nct.org.uk, www.rcm.org.uk, www.rcog.org.uk
46. Nerum H, Halvorsen L, Sorlie T, Olan P. 2006. Maternal request for cesarean section due to fear of birth: can it be changed through crisis-orientated counselling? Birth 33:221-227.
47. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. 2006. Focus on: Caesarean Section. Prolog Phase 3. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, Nottingham.
48. NICE, National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. 2004. Caesarean Section: Clinical Guidelines. London: RCOG Press.
49. Nielsen TF, Olausson PO, Ingermarsson I. 1994. The caesarean section rate in Sweden: the end of the rise. Birth 21:34-38.
50. 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.
51. RCOG 2001a. NICE Guidelines on electronic fetal monitoring. London: RCOG Press.
52. RCOG 2001b. Green-top Guidelines No. 20. Management of breech presentation. Updated 2006. London: RCOG Press. Available at: www.rcog.org.uk (Accessed 5 January 2007).
53. Reitberg CCT, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Visser GHA. 2005. The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in the Netherlands: an analysis of 35, 453 breech infants. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 112:205-209.
54. Robson M, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. 1996. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce caesarean section rates. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 174:199-205.
55. Rockenschaub A. 1990. Technology-free obstetrics at the Semmelweis Clinic. Lancet 335:977.
56. Ryding EL. 1993. Investigation of 33 women who demanded caesarean section for personal reasons. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 72:280-285.
57. Sandall JM, Davis J, Warwick K. 2001. Evaluation of the Albany Midwifery Practice. Kings College Hospital, London, Obtainable from Professor Sandall, Women's Health Research Group, Health and Social Care Research Division, King's College.
58. Savage W, Francome C. 2007a. British Consultants attitudes towards the rising Caesarean Section Rate. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology May: in press.
59. Savage W, Francome C. 2007b. British Consultants Caesarean practice. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology May: in press.
60. Savage W, Francome C. 1993. British caesarean section rates: have we reached a plateau? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 100:493-406.
61. Savage W, Gordon Y, Haddad F. 1992. Outcome of breech delivery at term. British Medical Journal 305:1092.
62. Smith GC, Dellens M, White JR, Pell JP. 2004. Combined logistic and Bayesian modeling of caesarean section risk. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 191:2029-2033.
63. Spencer C, Murphy D, Bewley S. 2006. Editorial. Caesarean section delivery in the second stage of labour. British Medical Journal 333:613-614.
64. Thacker SB, Stroup DE. 2001. Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database System Review 1.
65. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. 2001. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report, RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. London: RCOG Press.
66. Thorpe-Beeston J, Banfield P, Saunders N. 1992. Outcome of breech delivery at term. British Medical Journal 305:746-747.
67. Turnbull A, Tindall VR, Beard RW, Robson G, Dawson IMP, Cloake EP et al. 1989. Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in England and Wales 1982-84. Overview. London: HMSO.
68. Turner MJ. 2006. The Term Breech Trial: are the clinical guidelines justified by the evidence? Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 26:491-494.
69. US Task Force, National Institutes of Health. 1981. Cesarean Childbirth. Report of a Consensus Development Conference. NIH 82-2067. Washington DC: US Institute of Health and Human Services.
70. van Alten D, Eskes M, Treffers PE. 1989. Midwifery in the Netherlands: the Wormerveer study, selection, mode of delivery, perinatal mortality and infant morbidity. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 96:656-662.
71. van Roosmalen J, Rosendaal F. 2002. There is still room for disagreement about vaginal delivery of breech infants at term. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 109:967-969.
72. Vause S. 2006. Maintaining high normal birth and low intervention rates. In: Presentation given to Making Normal Birth a Reality organised by RCOG, RCM and NCT at Royal College of Physicians 29, 29.11.06. London: RCM and NCT at Royal College of Physicians.
73. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A. 2006. WHO 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health research group. Geneva: World Health Organization.
74. Walker R, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C. 2002. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth 29:28-39.
75. WHO. 1985. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet ii:436-437.
76. WHO. 2005. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 367:1819-1829.
77. Wilkinson C, McIlwaine G, Boulton-Jones, Cole S. 1998. Is a rising caesarean section rate inevitable? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 105:45-52.