Evaluating the 'Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme': A mixed method study in England

Midwifery

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 332-340

  Marshall, Joyce L ^a   Spiby, Helen ^a   McCormick, Felicia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Caesarean rates; Mixed methods; Normal birth; Service improvement programme

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INFANT; INFANT MORTALITY; MIDWIFE; NATURAL CHILDBIRTH; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT MORTALITY; MIDWIFERY; NATURAL CHILDBIRTH; PREGNANCY;

EID: 84921300157     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2014.10.005     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Althabe F., Belizán J.M., Villar J., et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 363:1934-1940.
2. Althabe F., Sosa C., Belizán J.M., Gibbons L., Jacquerioz F., Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006, 33:270-277.
3. Baldwin J., Brodrick A., Cowley S., Mason N. An innovative toolkit to support normal birth. J. Midwifery Women[U+05F3]s Health 2010, 55:270-272.
4. Baldwin J., Brodrick A., Mason N., Cowley S. Focus on normal birth and reducing caesarean section rates. MIDIRS Midwifery Dig. 2007, 17:279-282.
5. Blanchette H. The rising cesarean delivery rate in America: what are the consequences?. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011, 118:687-690.
6. Bragg F., Cromwell D.A., Edozien L.C., et al. Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. Br. Med. J. 2010, 341:c5065.
7. Brannen J. Mixed Methods Research: A Discussion Paper 2005, ESRC, London.
8. Brodrick A., Mason N., Baldwin J. Using collaborative theories to reduce Caesarean section rates and improve maternal and infant wellbeing. Essential Midwifery Practice: Expertise, Leadership and Collaborative Working 2011, 195-220. Blackwell, Oxford. S. Downe, S. Byrom, L. Simpson (Eds.).
9. Biringer A., Davies B., Nimrod C., Sternberg C., Youens W. Attaining and maintaining best practices in the use of caesarean section: an analysis of four hospitals 2000, Caesarean Section Working Group, Ontario Women[U+05F3]s Health Council, Ontario.
10. Catling-Paull C., Johnston R., Ryan C., Foureur M.J., Homer C.S.E. Non-clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011, 67:1662-1676.
11. Chaillet N., Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007, 34:53-64.
12. Churchill H., Savage W., Francome C. Caesarean Birth in Britain 2006, Middlesex University Press, London.
13. Declercq E., Young R., Cabral H., Ecker J. Is a rising cesarean delivery rate inevitable? Trends in industrialized countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth 2011, 38:99-104.
14. Deneux-Tharaux C., Carmona E., Bouvier-Colle M.-H., Bréart G. Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 108:541-548. (510.1097/1001.AOG.0000233154.0000262729.0000233124).
15. Fraser S.W. Accelerating the Spread of Good Practice. A Workbook for Health Care 2002, Kingsham Press, Chichester, West Sussex.
16. Gibbons L., Belizán J.M., Lauer J.A., Betrán A.P., Merialdi M., Althabe F. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Report. Background Paper, No. 30 2010, World Health Organization, Geneva.
17. Gottvall K., Waldenstrom U., Tingstig C., Grunewald C. In-hospital birth center with the same medical guidelines as standard care: a comparative study of obstetric interventions and outcomes. Birth-Issues Perinat. Care 2011, 38:120-128.
18. Gray R., Quigley M.A., Hockley C., Kurinczuk J.J., Goldacre M., Brocklehurst P. Caesarean delivery and risk of stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study in an English population. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007, 114:264-270.
19. Greenhalgh T., Robert G., Macfarlane F., Bate P., Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004, 82:581-629.
20. Hammersley M. Troubles with triangulation. Advances in Mixed Method Research 2008, 22-36. Sage, London. M.M. Bergman (Ed.).
21. Hanley G.E., Janssen P.A., Greyson D. Regional variation in the cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 115:1201-1208.
22. Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2009. NHS Maternity Statistics, England 2007-08. Department of Health.
23. Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2010. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2009-10. Department of Health, London.
24. Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2011. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2010-11. Department of Health, London.
25. Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2012. NHS Maternity Statistics - England, 2011-12. Department of Health, London.
26. Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2013. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2012-13. Department of Health, London.
27. Hodnett E., Gates S., Hofmeyr G., Sakala C., Weston J. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 2011, 2. (Art. No.: CD003766). 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub3.
28. Hollowell J. Birthplace Programme Overview: Background, Component Studies and Summary of Findings. Final Report Part 1 2011, NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Programme.
29. Iglesias S., Burn R., Saunders L.D. Reducing the cesarean section rate in a rural community hospital. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1991, 145:1459-1464.
30. Janssen P.A., Ryan E.M., Etches D.J., Klein M.C., Reime B. Outcomes of planned hospital birth attended by midwives compared with physicians in British Columbia. Birth-Issues Perinat. Care 2007, 34:140-147.
31. Klein M.C., Liston R., Fraser W.D., et al. Attitudes of the new generation of canadian obstetricians: how do they differ from their predecessors?. Birth-Issues Perinat. Care 2011, 38:129-139.
32. Knight M., Sullivan E.A. Variation in caesarean delivery rates. Br. Med. J. 2010, 341:c5255.
33. Lagrew D.C., Morgan M.A. Decreasing the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: success without mandated clinical changes. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996, 174:184-191.
34. Landon M.B., Hauth J.C., Leveno K.J., et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 351:2581-2589.
35. Liu S., Liston R.M., Joseph K.S. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2007, 176:455-460.
36. MacDorman M.F., Declercq E., Menacker F., Malloy M.H. Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an "intention-to-treat" model. Birth 2008, 35:3-8.
37. Main E.K. Reducing cesarean birth rates with data-driven quality improvement activities. Pediatrics 1999, 103:374-383.
38. Mawson A.R. A mandatory second opinion policy reduces caesarean section rates in hospitals in Latin America. Evid.-Based Healthc. Public Health 2004, 8:392-395.
39. Pathways to Success: A Self-Improvement Toolkit: Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean Section Rates 2007, NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, NHS Institute.
40. Overgaard C., Møller A.M., Fenger-Grøn M., Knudsen L.B., Sandall J. Freestanding midwifery unit versus obstetric unit: a matched cohort study of outcomes in low-risk women. BMJ Open 2011, 1(2):e000262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000262.
41. Pentland D., Forsyth K., Maciver D., et al. Key characteristics of knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare: integrative literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011, 67:1408-1425.
42. Robson C. Real World Research: A Resource for Users of Social Research Methods in Applied Settings 2011, Wiley, Chichester. 3rd edn.
43. Robson M.S., Scudamore I.W., Walsh S.M. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996, 174:199-205.
44. Sakala C. Midwifery care and out-of-hospital birth settings: how do they reduce unnecessary cesarean section births?. Soc. Sci. Med. 1993, 37:1233-1250.
45. Villar J., Carroli G., Zavaleta N., et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. Br. Med. J. 2007, 335:1025.
46. Villar J., Valladares E., Wojdyla D., et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006, 367:1819-1829.
47. Walker R., Turnbull D., Wilkinson C. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth-Issues Perinat. Care 2002, 29:28-39.
48. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985, 2:436-437. World Health Organization.