Reduction in the cesarean delivery rate after obstetric care consensus guideline implementation

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 128, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 145-152

  Wilson Leedy, Jonas G ^a   Disilvestro, Alexis J ^a   Repke, John T ^a   Pauli, Jaimey M ^a  

^a PENN STATE MILTON S HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR MANAGEMENT; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; OBSTETRIC PROCEDURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX DILATATION; CONSENSUS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; LABOR INDUCTION; NATURAL CHILDBIRTH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PENNSYLVANIA; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROCEDURES; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; RISK MANAGEMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRIAL OF LABOR;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT STUDIES; CONSENSUS; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; LABOR, INDUCED; NATURAL CHILDBIRTH; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PENNSYLVANIA; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK MANAGEMENT; TRIAL OF LABOR;

EID: 84973345469     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001488     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. NIH consensus development statement on cesarean childbirth. The Cesarean Birth Task Force. Obstet Gynecol 1981; 57:537-45.
2. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. Active-phase labor arrest: oxytocin augmentation for at least 4 hours. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93:323-8.
3. Osterman MJ, Martin JA. Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990-2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2014;63: 1-16.
4. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693-711.
5. Pallasmaa N, Alanen A, Ekblad U, Vahlberg T, Koivisto M, Raudaskoski T, et al. Variation in cesarean section rates is not related to maternal and neonatal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:1168-74.
6. Nippita TA, Lee YY, Patterson JA, Ford JB, Morris JM, Nicholl MC, et al. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates and obstetric outcomes among nulliparae at term: a populationbased cohort study. BJOG 2015;122:702-11.
7. Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32:527-35.
8. Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1181-93.
9. Healthy People 2020. Maternal, infant, and child Health. Available at: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/maternal-infant-And-child-health. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
10. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol 2008;35:293-307, v.
11. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148343.
12. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod Health Matters 2015;23:149-50.
13. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health 2015;12:57.
14. Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, Varner MW, Spong CY, Ramin SM, et al. Failed labor induction: toward an objective diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:267-72.
15. Simon CE, Grobman WA. When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:705-9.
16. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:671-7.
17. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Savage KG, Hauth JC. Active phase labor arrest: revisiting the 2-hour minimum. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98:550-4.
18. Henry DE, Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Kaimal AJ, Bianco K, Caughey AB. Perinatal outcomes in the setting of active phase arrest of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112: 1109-15.
19. Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, Varner MW, Spong CY, Ramin SM, et al. Second-stage labor duration in nulliparous women: relationship to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:357.e1-7.
20. Rhinehart-Ventura J, Eppes C, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Davidson C. Evaluation of outcomes after implementation of an induction-of-labor protocol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211: 301.e1-7.
21. Allen VM, Baskett TF, O'Connell CM, McKeen D, Allen AC. Maternal and perinatal outcomes with increasing duration of the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113:1248-58.
22. Harper LM, Caughey AB, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Cahill AG. Defining an abnormal first stage of labor based on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:536.e1-7.