Preventable Obstetrical Interventions: How Many Caesarean Sections Can Be Prevented in Canada?

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 434-443

  Rossignol, Michel ^a,b   Moutquin, Jean Marie ^b,c   Boughrassa, Faiza ^c   Bédard, Marie Josée ^d   Chaillet, Nils ^e   Charest, Christiane ^f   Ciofani, Luisa ^g   Dumas Pilon, Maxine ^a   Gagné, Guy Paul ^a   Gagnon, Andrée ^h   Sage femme, Raymonde Gagnon ⁱ   Senikas, Vyta ^j  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Institut National D'excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^f Centre de sant et services sociaux La Pommeraie   (Canada)

^g MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^h Hôpital Régional de St Jérôme   (Canada)

ⁱ UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À TROIS RIVIÈRES   (Canada)

^j The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

Caesarean section; Health organization; Health services; Obstetrical interventions

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CESAREAN SECTION; EPIDURAL ANALGESIA; FETUS ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FETUS HEART RATE; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HEART AUSCULTATION; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; LABOR PAIN; MATERNAL MORTALITY; OBSTETRIC PROCEDURE; PERINATAL MORBIDITY; PERINATAL MORTALITY; PREVALENCE; REPEAT CESAREAN SECTION; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN; DELIVERY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH SERVICE; MEDICAL AUDIT; OBSTETRICAL INTERVENTIONS; REVIEW; STATISTICS; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

CAESAREAN SECTION; HEALTH ORGANIZATION; HEALTH SERVICES; OBSTETRICAL INTERVENTIONS;

CANADA; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL AUDIT; FEMALE; HUMANS; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 84884715993     PISSN: 17012163     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30934-8     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Blanchette H. The rising cesarean delivery rate in America: what are the consequences?. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 118(3):687-690.
2. Kansagara D., Englander H., Salanitro A., Kagen D., Theobald C., Freeman M., et al. Risk prediction models for hospital readmission: a systematic review. JAMA 2011, 306(15):1688-1698.
3. Yam C.H., Wong E.L., Chan F.W., Wong F.Y., Leung M.C., Yeoh E.K. Measuring and preventing potentially avoidable hospital readmissions: a review of the literature. Hong Kong Med T 2010, 16(5):383-389.
4. Klein M.C., Gauthier R.J., Jorgensen S.H., Robbins J.M., Kaczorowski J., Johnson B., et al. Does episiotomy prevent perineal trauma and pelvic floor relaxation?. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1992, Doc No 10.
5. Eason E., Labrecque M., Wells G., Feldman P. Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 95(3):464-471.
6. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987, 317(3):141-145.
7. Charles S. The ethics of vaginal birth after cesarean. Hastings Cent Rep 2012, 42(4):24-27.
8. Chervenak F.A., McCullough L.B. The professional responsibility model of respect for autonomy in decision making about cesarean delivery. Am J Bioeth 2012, 12(7):1-2.
9. Chervenak F.A., McCullough L.B., Arabin B. Obstetric ethics: an essential dimension of planned home birth. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 117(5):1183-1187.
10. Peterson K., McDonagh M.S., Fu R. Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(9):977-984.
11. Chaillet N., Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007, 34(1):53-64.
12. Association pour la sante publique du Quebec. Historique de la perinatalite au Quebec 2012, Available at:, Accessed August 15. http://www.aspq.org.
13. Pakenham S., Chamberlain S.M., Smith G.N. Women's views on elective primary Caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006, 28(12):1089-1094.
14. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health indicators 2011 2011, CIHI, Ottawa, Available at:, Accessed August 16, 2012. https://secure.cihi.ca.
15. Guise J.M., Denman M.A., Emeis C., Marshall N., Walker M., Fu R., et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010, 115(6):1267-1278.
16. Hodnett E.D., Downe S., Walsh D., Weston J. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 9:CD000012.
17. De Koninck M., Blais R., Joubert P., Gagnon C. L'equipe d'evaluation des projets-pilotes sage-femmes. Comparing women's assessment of midwifery and medical care in Quebec, Canada. J Midwifery Womens Health 2001, 46(2):60-67.
18. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011, 343:d7400. 23.
19. Janssen P.A., Saxell L., Page L.A., Klein M.C., Liston R.M., Lee S.K. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ 2009, 181(6-7):377-383.
20. Robson M.S. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 15(1):179-194.
21. Torloni M.R., Betran A.P., Souza J.P., Widmer M., Allen T., Gulmezoglu M., et al. Classifications for caesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011, 6(1):e14566.
22. Rossignol M., Boughrassa F., Moutquin J.M. Mesures prometteuses pour diminuer le recours aux interventions obstetricales evitables pour les femmes a faible risque 2012, Institut d'excellence en sante et en services sociaux (INESSS), Quebec, Available at:, Accessed November 26, 2012. http://inesss.qc.ca.
23. Bix E., Reiner L.M., Klovning A., Oian P. Prognostic value of the labour admission test and its effectiveness compared with auscultation only: a systematic review. BJOG 2005, 112(12):1595-1604.
24. Alfirevic Z., Kelly A.J., Dowswell T. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 4:CD003246.
25. Gulmezoglu A.M., Crowther C.A., Middleton P., Heatley E. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 6:CD004945.
26. Caughey A.B., Sundaram V., Kaimal A.J., Gienger A., Cheng Y.W., McDonald K.M., et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labour versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151(4):252-263.
27. Wei S.Q., Luo Z.C., Xu H., Fraser W.D. The effect of early oxytocin augmentation in labour: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 114(3):641-649.
28. Public Health Agency of Canada. What mothers say: the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey 2009, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa.
29. Harris S., Buchinski B., Gryzbowski S., Janssen P., Mitchell G.W.E., Farquharson D. Induction of labour: a continuous quality improvement and peer review program to improve the quality of care. CMAJ 2000, 163(9):1163-1166.
30. World Health Organization. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook 2009, World Health Organization, Geneva.
31. Haute autorite de sante. Grossesses a risque: orientation des femmes enceintes entre les maternites en vue de l'accouchement 2009, Haute autorite de sante, Paris, France.
32. Harris S.J., Janssen P.A., Saxell L., Carty E.A., MacRae G.S., Petersen K.L. Effects of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes. CMAJ 2012, 184(17):1885-1889.
33. Public Health Agency of Canada. Family-centred maternity and newborn care: National guidelines 2000, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
34. Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN). Guidelines for professional registered nurse staffing for perinatal units 2010, AWHONN, Washington DC.
35. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC). The Quarisma (Quality of Care, Management of Obstetrical Risks and Birthing Mode in Quebec) project 2012, Available at:, Accessed August 16. http://www.sogc.org/projects/quarisma_e.asp.
36. Ivers N., Jamtvedt G., Flottorp S., Young J.M., Odgaard-Jensen J., French S.D., et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 6:CD000259.
37. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses of Canada, the Canadian Association of Midwives, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada. Joint policy statement on normal childbirth. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 221. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008, 30:1163-1165.
38. Klein M.C., Kaczorowski J., Hearps S.J., Tomkinson J., Baradaran N., Hall W.A., et al. Birth technology and maternal roles in birth: knowledge and attitudes of Canadian women approaching childbirth for the first time. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011, 33(6):598-608.
39. Farine D., Shepherd D. Classification of Caesarean sections in Canada: the modified Robson criteria. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012, 34(10):976-979.