Appropriateness of elective caesarean deliveries in a perinatal network: A cross-sectional study

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Vendittelli, Françoise ^a,b,c   Tassié, Marie Caroline ^a   Gerbaud, Laurent ^a,b   Lémery, Didier ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF CLERMONT FERRAND   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ CLERMONT AUVERGNE   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

Audit; Birth; Caesarean; Delivery; Inappropriateness of care; Medical practice assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNITY WARD; MEDICAL AUDIT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERINATAL CARE; PREGNANT WOMAN; TWIN PREGNANCY; X RAY PELVIMETRY;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; FRANCE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; PERINATAL CARE; PREGNANCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 84899491440     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712393     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-135     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Association des Utilisateurs de Dossiers Informatisés en Pédiatrie, Obstétrique et Gynécologie http://www.audipog.net/interro-choix.php.
2. Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé La Direction de la recherche, des études, de l'évaluation et des statistiques (Drees). Enquête nationale Périnatale 2010. Les naissances en 2010 et leur évolution depuis 2003, http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Les_naissances_en_2010_et_leur_evolution_depuis_2003.pdf, Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé.
3. Euro-PERISTAT The European Perinatal Health Report 2010, http://www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010.html, Euro-PERISTAT.
4. World Health Organization http://search.who.int/search?q=caesarean+section&ie=utf8&site=who&client=_en_r&proxystylesheet=_en_r&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8&getfields=doctype.
5. Fédération Hospitalière de France http://www.fhf.fr/Actualites/Presse-Communication/Espace-presse/Communiques-de-presse/Etude-sur-les-cesariennes/.
6. Statistique Annuelle des Etablissements de Santé Ministère des affaires Sociales et de la santé http://www.sae-diffusion.sante.gouv.fr/Collecte_2012/, Statistique Annuelle des Etablissements de Santé.
7. Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français http://www.cngof.asso.fr.
8. Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) http://www.has-sante.fr.
9. Clark SL, Hankins GD. Temporal and demographic trends in cerebral palsy-fact and fiction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 188:628-633. 10.1067/mob.2003.204, 12634632.
10. Ziadeh SM, Sunna EI. Decreased caesarean birth rates and improved perinatal outcome: a seven-year study. Birth 1995, 22:144-147. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1995.tb00690.x, 7575862.
11. Clark SL, Miller DD, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Frye DK, Meyers JA. Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 200:156.e1-156.e4.
12. Tutdibi E, Gries K, Bücheler M, Misselwitz B, Schlosser RL, Gortner L. Impact of labor on outcomes in transient tachypnea of the newborn: population-based study. Pediatrics 2010, 12:577-583.
13. Kennare R, Tuckr G, Heard A, Chan A. Risks of adverse outcomes in the next birth after a first caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:270-276. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000250469.23047.73, 17267823.
14. Liu S, Liston RB, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. for the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007, 176:455-460. 10.1503/cmaj.060870, 1800583, 17296957, for the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System.
15. Vendittelli F. Variations des pratiques médicales: l'exemple de la césarienne. La césarienne (in French) 2002, 31-45. Paris: Sauramps médical Editions, Racinet C, Favier F, 2.
16. Haute Autorité de Santé Revue de pertinence des soins. Application aux admissions et aux journées d'hospitalisation (in French) 2004, Paris: HAS Press, http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2009-08/rps_guide.pdf, Haute Autorité de Santé.
17. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) Césarienne: conséquences et indications (in French) 2000, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).
18. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) et Société Francophone du Diabète Le diabète gestationnel (in French) 2010, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) et Société Francophone du Diabète.
19. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) Modalités de naissance des enfants de faible poids de naissance (in French) 1998, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).
20. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) Rupture prématurée des membranes (in French) 2009, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).
21. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) Les grossesses gémellaires 2009, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).
22. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) Prévention du cancer du col de l'utérus (in French) 2007, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).
23. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) Prise en charge des kystes de l'ovaire présumés bénins (in French) 2001, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).
24. Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) Diagnostic et prise en charge de l'incontinence urinaire de la femme adulte (in French) 2009, Paris: CNGOF Press, http://www.cngof.asso.fr/, Collège National de Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).
25. Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) Synthèse des recommandations professionnelles. Déclenchement artificiel du travail à partir de 37SA 2008, Paris: HAS Press, http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_666473/declenchement-artificiel-du-travail-a-partir-de-37-semaines-d-amenorrhee, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS).
26. Brook RH. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method 1995, Santa Monica: CA: RAND Corporation, http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP395.html.
27. Gertman PM, Restuccia JD. The appropriateness evaluation protocol: a technique for assessing unnecessary days of hospital care. Med Care 1981, 19:855-871. 10.1097/00005650-198108000-00005, 7196975.
28. Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape LL, Bernstein SJ, Hilborne LH, Parker L, Kamberg CJ, Ballard DJ, Brook RH. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care 1996, 34:512-523. 10.1097/00005650-199606000-00002, 8656718.
29. Fitch K, Berstein SJ, Aguilar MS, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, van het Loo M, McDonnel J, Vader J, Kahan JP. The RAND/UCLA appropriatness methode user's manual 2001, Santa Monica, USA: Library of Congress cataloguing-in-Publication data, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269.html.
30. Kahan JP, Berstein SJ, Leape LL, Hilborne LH, Park RE, Parker L, Kamberg CJ, Brook RH. Measuring the Necessity of Medical Procedures. Med Care 1994, 32:357-365. 10.1097/00005650-199404000-00004, 8139300.
31. Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) Recommandations de bonne pratique. Indications de la césarienne programmée à terme (in French) 2012, Paris: HAS Press, http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_1070417/indications-de-la-cesarienne-programmee-a-terme, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS).
32. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Caesarean Section http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG132, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
33. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence NICE clinical guideline 132. Caesarean section 2011, London: NHS Press, [Guidance-nice.org.uk/cg132], National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
34. Ostovar R, Rashidian A, Pourreza A, Rashidi BH, Hantooshzadeh S, Ardebili HE, Mahmoudi M. Members of the Panel of the Cesarean Section RAM Study Developing criteria for Cesarean Section using the RAND appropriateness method. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010, 10:52. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/10/52, 10.1186/1471-2393-10-52, 2949786, 20840776, Members of the Panel of the Cesarean Section RAM Study.
35. Wennberg J. Which rate is right?. N Engl J Med 1986, 314:310-311. 10.1056/NEJM198601303140509, 3941721.
36. Chamberlain G. What is the correct cesarean section rate?. Br J Med 1986, 314:310-311.
37. David S, Mamelle N, Rivière O. Estimation of an expected cesarean section rate taking into account the case mix of a maternity hospital. Analysis from the Audipog sentinelle network. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 108:919-926.
38. Main EK, Moore D, Farrell B, Schimmel LD, Altam RJ, Abrahams C, Bliss MC, Polivy L, Sterling J. Is there a useful cesarean birth measure? Assessment of nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth rate as a tool for obstetric quality improvement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006, 194:163-252.
39. Ostovar R, Pourreza A, Rashidian A, Rashidi BH, Hantooshzadeh S, Haghollai F, Ardebili HE, Mahmoudi M. Appropriateness of caesarean sections using the Rand appropriate method criteria. Arch Iran Med 2012, 15:8-13.
40. National Institutes of Health NIH State-of-the-Sciences Conference Statement on cesarean delivery on maternal request. NIH Consensus State Sci Statements 2006, 23:1-29. National Institutes of Health.
41. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110:1501-1504. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000291577.01569.4c, 18055756, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
42. Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Nichols CN. Patient preference the leading indication for elective caesarean section in public patients - results of 2 year propective audit in a teaching hospital. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol 1999, 39:207-214.
43. Michaluk CA. Cesarean delivery by maternal request: what neonatal nurses need to know. Neonatal Netw 2009, 28:145-150. 10.1891/0730-0832.28.3.145, 19451075.
44. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, Grandjean H, Gratia P, Guaschino S, Heyl W, Taylor D, Cuttini M. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 2006, 113:647-656. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00933.x, 16709207.
45. Jacquemyn Y, Ahankour F, Martens G. Flemish Obstetrician' personal preference regarding mode of delivery and attitude towards caesarean section on demand. Eur J Obtet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003, 111:164-166.
46. Gamble JA, Credy DK. Women's request for cesarean section: a critique of the literature. Birth 2000, 27:256-263. 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00256.x, 11251511.
47. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Ethical Issues in Obstetrics and Gynecology by the FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health 2009, London: FIGO Press, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).
48. Nilstun T, Habiba M, Lingman G, Saracci R, Da Frè M, Cuttini M., EUROBS study group Cesarean delivery on maternal request: can the ethical problem be solved by the principle approach?. BMC Med Ethics 2008, 9:11. 10.1186/1472-6939-9-11, 2446392, 18559083, EUROBS study group.
49. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007, 34:53-64. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00146.x, 17324180.
50. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GML. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 3:CD004660. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub3.
51. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen RL. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 6:CD005528. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub2.
52. Iriye BK, Huang WH, Condon J, Hancock L, Hancock JK, Ghamsary M, Garite TJ. Implementation of a laborist program and evaluation of the effect upon cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013, 209:251.e1-6.
53. Vendittelli F, Rivière O, Crenn-Hébert C, Giraud-Roufast A., Audipog Sentinel Network Do French guidelines have an impact on medical practice?. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2012, e-pub ahead of print 14 September 2012; doi:10.1016/j.respe.2012.03.002, Audipog Sentinel Network.