Practice variation of vaginal birth after cesarean and the influence of risk factors at patient level:A retrospective cohort study

IntroductionLarge practice variation exists in mode of delivery after cesarean section, suggesting variation in implementation of contemporary guidelines. We aim to evaluate this practice variation and to what extent this can be explained by risk factors at patient level. Material and methodsThis retrospective cohort study was performed among 17 Dutch hospitals in 2010. Women with one prior cesarean section without a contraindication for a trial of labor were included. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to develop models for risk factor adjustments. One model was derived to adjust the elective repeat cesarean section rates; a second model to adjust vaginal birth after cesarean rates. Standardized rates of elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean per hospital were compared. Pseudo-R-2 measures were calculated to estimate the percentage of practice variation explained by the models. Secondary outcomes were differences in practice variation between hospital types and the correlation between standardized elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean rates. ResultsIn all, 1068 women had a history of cesarean section, of whom 71% were eligible for inclusion. A total of 515 women (67%) had a trial of labor, of whom 72% delivered vaginally. The elective repeat cesarean section rate at hospital level ranged from 6 to 54% (mean 29.8, standard deviation 11.8%). Vaginal birth after cesarean rates ranged from 50 to 90% (mean 71.8%, standard deviation 11.1%). More than 85% of this practice variation could not be explained by risk factors at patient level. ConclusionA large practice variation exists in elective repeat cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean rates that can only partially be explained by risk factors at patient level

Development and Measurement of Guidelines-Based Quality Indicators of Caesarean Section Care in the Netherlands: A RAND-Modified Delphi Procedure and Retrospective Medical Chart Review

There is an ongoing discussion on the rising CS rate worldwide. Suboptimal guideline adherence may be an important contributor to this rise. Before improvement of care can be established, optimal CS care in different settings has to be defined. This study aimed to develop and measure quality indicators to determine guideline adherence and identify target groups for improvement of care with direct effect on caesarean section (CS) rates. Eighteen obstetricians and midwives participated in an expert panel for systematic CS quality indicator development according to the RAND-modified Delphi method. A multi-center study was performed and medical charts of 1024 women with a CS and a stratified and weighted randomly selected group of 1036 women with a vaginal delivery were analysed. Quality indicator frequency and adherence were scored in 2060 women with a CS or vaginal delivery. The expert panel developed 16 indicators on planned CS and 11 indicators on unplanned CS. Indicator adherence was calculated, defined as the number of women in a specific obstetrical situation in which care was performed as recommended in both planned and unplanned CS settings. The most frequently occurring obstetrical situations with low indicator adherence were: 1) suspected fetal distress (frequency 17%, adherence 46%), 2) non-progressive labour (frequency 12%, CS performed too early in over 75%), 3) continuous support during labour (frequency 88%, adherence 37%) and 4) previous CS (frequency 12%), with adequate counselling in 15%. We identified four concrete target groups for improvement of obstetrical care, which can be used as a starting point to reduce CS rates worldwid

Stepwise procedure of CS quality indicator development.

<p>Stepwise procedure of CS quality indicator development.</p