Managing the primary cesarean delivery rate

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 946-960

  Branch, David Ware ^a   Silver, Robert M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

labor management; primary cesarean; process improvement

Indexed keywords

AMNIOTOMY; ARTICLE; BREECH EXTRACTION; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION MAKING; DIABETES MELLITUS; DYSTOCIA; FETUS HEART RATE; GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION (SPECIES); HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INFECTION; LABOR INDUCTION; LUNG EMBOLISM; MALPRACTICE; MATERNAL AGE; MULTIPARA; NEONATAL RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME; NULLIPARA; OBESITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PLACENTA ACCRETA; RISK REDUCTION; UTERUS RUPTURE; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; DYSTOCIA; FEES AND CHARGES; FEMALE; FETAL DISTRESS; HUMANS; MIDWIFERY; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PHYSICIANS; PREGNANCY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84868103351     PISSN: 00099201     EISSN: 15325520     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e318263c547     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: Final data for 2009. National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol 60 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
2. Zhang J, Troendle J, ReddyUM, et al. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:326. e1-326. e10.
3. Queenan JT. How to stop the relentless rise in cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118: 199-200.
4. Menacker F. Trends in Cesarean Rates for First Birth and Repeat Cesarean Rates for Low-Risk Women: United States, 1990-2003. National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol 54 no 4 Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
5. Cunningham FG, Bangdiwala S, Brown SS, et al. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: New Insights. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115: 1279-1295.
6. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, et al. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118: 29-38.
7. Brennan DJ, Murphy M, Robson MS, et al. The singleton, cephalic, nulliparous woman after 26 weeks of gestation. Contribution to overall cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:273-279.
8. Ehrenthal DB, Jiang X, Strobino DM. Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:35-42.
9. Haberman S, Sumit S, et al. Nonclinical parameters affecting primary cesarean rates in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012. (In press).
10. Homer CS, Davis GK, Brodie PM, et al. Collaboration in maternity care: a randomized controlled trial comparing community-based continuity of care with standard hospital care. BJOG. 2001;108: 16-22.
11. Hueston WJ, Lewis-Stevenson S. Provider distribution and variations in statewide cesarean section rates. J Community Health. 2001;26: 1-10.
12. Fuglenes D, Oian P, Kristiansen IS. Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:48. e1-48. e8.
13. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191: 864-871.
14. Cruikshank DP. Intrapartum management of twin gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1167-1176.
15. Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, et al. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:705-710.
16. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116: 1281-1287.
17. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Savage KG, et al. Active phase labor arrest: revisiting the 2 hour minimum. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:550-554.
18. Lopez-Zeno JA, Peaceman AM, Adashek JA, et al. A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor. N Engl J Med. 1992;326: 450-454.
19. Frigoletto FD, Lieberman E, Lang JM, et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:745-750.
20. Rogers R, Gilson GJ, Miller AC, et al. Active management of labor: doesn't it make a difference? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:599-605.
21. Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, et al. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in lowrisk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;4: CD004907.
22. Cammu H, VanEeckhout E. A randomised controlled trial of early vs delayed use of amniotomy and oxytocin infusion in nulliparous labor. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:313-318.
23. Sadler LC, Davison T, McCowan LME. A randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis of active management of labour. BJOG. 2000;107: 909-915.
24. Tabowei TO, Oboro VO. Active management of labour in a district hospital setting. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;23:9-12.
25. Somprasit C, Tanprasertkul C, Kamudhamas A. Reducing cesarean delivery rates: an active management labor program in a setting with limited resources. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88:20-25.
26. Alifirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GML. Continuous CTG as a form of electronic fetal monitoring for fetal assessment during labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3:CD007863.
27. MacDonald D, Grant A, Sheridan-Pereira M, et al. The Dublin randomized controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;152:524-539.
28. Becker JH, Bax L, Amer-Wa? hlin I, et al. ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram in intrapartum fetal monitoring: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:145-154.
29. Westgate J, Harris M, Curnow JS, et al. Plymouth randomized trial of cardiotocogram only versus ST waveform plus cardiotocogram for intrapartum monitoring in 2400 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169:1151-1160.
30. Strachan BK, van Wijngaarden WJ, Sahota D, et al. Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus PR-interval analysis in intrapartum surveillance: a randomised, multicentre trial. FECG Study Group. Lancet. 2000;355:456-459.
31. Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Noren H, et al. Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:534-538.
32. Ojala K, Vaarasmaki M, Makikallio K, et al. A comparison of intrapartum automated fetal electrocardiography and conventional cardiotocography- a randomised controlled study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113:419-423.
33. Vayssiere C, David E, Meyer N, et al. A French randomized controlled trial of ST-segment analysis in a population with abnormal cardiotocograms during labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197:e1-e6.
34. Westerhuis ME, Visser GH, Moons KG, et al. Cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram compared with cardiotocography only for intrapartum monitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115: 1173-1180.
35. Zalar RW Jr, Quilligan EJ. The influence of scalp sampling on the cesarean section rate for fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;135:239-246.
36. American College of Obstetricians and GynecologistsIntrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Practice Bulletin No. 106. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114:192-202.
37. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, et al. Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1375-1383.
38. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, et al. SOCG Clinical Practice Guideline No. 226. Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. JOCG. 2009; 557-566.
39. Deering S, Brown J, Hodor J, et al. Simulation training and resident performance of singleton vaginal breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107: 86-89.
40. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declerq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends and outcomes. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35: 293-307.
41. Hogle KL, Hutton EK, McBrien KA, et al. Cesarean delivery for twins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;186: 220-227.
42. Vardo JH, Thornburg LL, Glantz JC. Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med. 2011;56:25-30.
43. Kiesewetter B, Lehner R. Maternal outcome monitoring: induction of labor versus spontaneous onset of labor-a retrospective analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:37-41.
44. Glantz JC. Term labor induction compared with expectant management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115:70-76.
45. Heffner LJ, Eekin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102: 287-293.
46. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:164-167.
47. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:628-633.
48. Crowley P. Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; 2:CD000160.
49. Smith LP, Nagourney BA, McLean FH, et al. Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;148:579-585.
50. Fisch JM, English D, Pedaline S, et al. Labor induction process improvement. A patient quality- of-care initiative. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113: 797-803.
51. Oshiro BT, Henry E, Wilson J, et al. Women and Newborn Clinical Integration Program. Decreasing elective deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation in an integrated health care system. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:804-811.
52. Rudd RE, Colton T, Schacht R. An Overview of Medical and PublicHealth Literature Addressing Literacy Issues: An Annotated Bibliography (NCSALL Report No. 14). Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
53. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, et al. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135: 943-973.
54. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18: 884-892.
55. Herz DA, Looman JE, Lewis SK. Informed consent: is it a myth? Neurosurgery. 1992;30:453-458.
56. Mehdizadeh A, Roosta F, Chaichian S, et al. Evaluation of the impact of birth preparation courses on the health of the mother and newborn. Am J Perinatol. 2005;22:7-9.
57. Fraser W, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, et al. The Childbirth Alternatives Post-Cesarean Study GroupRandomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 419-425.
58. American College of Obstetricians and GynecologistsVaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Practice Bulletin No. 115. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:450-463.
59. DeLano CF, Hirsh LD, Schauberger CW. Nursemidwifery at Gunderson clinic: a twenty year review. Wis Med J. 1997;96:37-40.
60. Davis LG, Riedmann GL, Sapiro M, et al. Cesarean section rates in low-risk private patients managed by certified nurse-midwives and obstetricians. J Nurse Midwifery. 1994;39:91-97.
61. Blanchette H. Comparison of obstetric outcome of a primary-care access clinic staffed by certified nurse-midwives and a private practice group of obstetricians in the same community Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1864-1868; discussion 1868-1871.
62. Shaw-Battista J, Fineberg A, Boehler B, et al. Obstetrician and nurse-midwife collaboration: successful public health and private practice partnership. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:663-672.
63. Darlington A, McBroom K, Warwick S. A northwest collaborative practice model. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:673-677.
64. Harvey S, Jarrell J, Brant R, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of nurse-midwifery care. Birth. 1996;23:128-135.
65. Keeler EB, Fok T. Equalizing physician fees had little effect on cesarean rates. Med Care Res Rev. 1996;53:465-471.
66. Lo JC. Financial incentives do not always work- an example of cesarean sections in Taiwan. Health Policy. 2008;88:121-129.
67. McMahon LF, Chopra V. Health care cost and value. The way forward. JAMA. 2012;307: 671-672.
68. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, et al. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. JAMA. 1991;265:2202-2207.
69. Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, Amelink-Verburg MP, et al. Randomized clinical trial on the effect of the Dutch peer review system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;102:21-30.
70. Bickell NA, Zdeb MS, Applegate NS, et al. Effect of external peer review on cesarean delivery rates: a statewide program. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87: 664-667.
71. JangWM,Eun SJ,Lee C-E, et al. Effect of repeated public releases on cesarean section rates. J Prev Med Pub Health. 2011;44:2-8.
72. Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce the cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174: 199-205.
73. Poma PA. Effect of departmental policies on cesarean delivery rates: a community hospital experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:1013-1018.
74. Liang W-H, Yuan C-C, Hung J-H, et al. Effect of peer review and trial of labor on lowering cesarean section rates. J Chin Med Assoc. 2004;67:281-286.
75. Lagrew DC, Morgan MA. Decreasing the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: success without mandated clinical changes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:184-191.
76. Flamm BL, Berwick DM, Kabcenell A. Reducing cesarean section rates safely: lessons from a breakthrough series collaborative. Birth. 1998; 25:117-124.
77. Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce the rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363: 1934-1940.
78. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth. 2007;34:53-64.