Using the continuous quality improvement process to safely lower the cesarean section rate

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

Interventions Aimed at Reducing Use of Low-Value Health Services: A Systematic Review

The effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce low-value care has been insufficiently summarized to allow for translation to practice. This article systematically reviews the literature on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value care and the quality of those studies. We found that multicomponent interventions addressing both patient and clinician roles in overuse have the greatest potential to reduce low-value care. Clinical decision support and performance feedback are promising strategies with a solid evidence base, and provider education yields changes by itself and when paired with other strategies. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance, insurer restrictions, and risk-sharing contracts to reduce use of low-value care. While the literature reveals important evidence on strategies used to reduce low-value care, meaningful gaps persist. More experimentation, paired with rigorous evaluation and publication, is needed.

When health technologies do not reach their effectiveness potential: a health service research perspective

This paper tries to unravel the following question: why do we sometimes obtain results that are worse than expected despite having used technologies that are provenly efficacious or effective and having eliminated major groups of causes leading to poor performance? Inductive analysis and synthesis based on nine areas of health service research show that to effectively adopt some health technologies, it is not enough to simply choose an efficacious or effective change strategy. It sometimes becomes necessary to change the behavior of the health workers that will use it, and to modify certain environmental elements. Technology's effectiveness also depends on intervening simultaneously at various levels. Using a mix of evidence-based change (multifaceted) strategies is often mandatory. Improving health service calls for permanent, not sporadic, efforts; for ensuring universal access to information, and for adopting regulations to prevent poor or potentially harmful service delivery. A portion of the service improvements that have been attained have resulted from the use not of isolated change measures, but of combinations of the most effective measures as part of a single integrated intervention. To further reduce the gap between observed and expected effectiveness we should pilot behavior change strategies before adopting some health technologies, and to permanently install in our health system the multifactorial, integrated technology adoption mechanisms that we still lack. Failure to do this will mean being inefficient and pursuing short-term results at the expense of feasible and legitimate medium-term objectives.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section rates are steadily increasing globally. The factors contributing to these observed increases are complex. Non-clinical interventions, those applied independent of patient care in a clinical encounter, may have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean sections.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (29 March 2010), the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Specialised Register (29 March 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010); EMBASE (1947 to March 2010) and CINAHL (1982 to March 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) with at least two intervention and control sites, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) where the intervention time was clearly defined and there were at least three data points before and three after the intervention. Studies evaluated non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section rates. Participants included pregnant women and their families, healthcare providers who work with expectant mothers, communities and advocacy groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the quality and abstracted data of all eligible studies using a standardised data extraction form, modified from the Cochrane EPOC checklists. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies in this review.Six studies specifically targeted pregnant women. Two RCTs were shown to be effective in reducing caesarean section rates: a nurse-led relaxation training programme for women with a fear or anxiety of childbirth and birth preparation sessions. However, both RCTs were small in size and targeted younger mothers with their first pregnancies. There is insufficient evidence that prenatal education and support programmes, computer patient decision-aids, decision-aid booklets and intensive group therapy are effective.Ten studies targeted health professionals. Three of these studies were effective in reducing caesarean section rates. A cluster-RCT of guideline implementation with mandatory second opinion resulted in a small, statistically significant reduction in total caesarean section rates (adjusted risk difference (RD) -1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -0.1); this reduction was predominately in intrapartum sections. An ITS study of mandatory second opinion and peer review feedback at department meetings found statistically significant results at 48 months for reducing repeat caesarean section rates (change in level was -6.4%; 95% CI -9.7% to -3.1% and change in slope -1.14%; 95% CI -1.9% to -0.3%) but not for total caesarean section rates. A cluster-RCT of guideline implementation with support from local opinion leaders increased the proportion of women with a previous caesarean section being offered a trial of labour (absolute difference 16.8%) and the number who had a vaginal birth (VBAC rates) (absolute difference 13.5%). The P values are, however, not reported due to unit of analysis errors. There was insufficient evidence that audit and feedback, training of public health nurses, insurance reform, external peer review and legislative changes are effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of guidelines with mandatory second opinion can lead to a small reduction in caesarean section rates, predominately in intrapartum sections. Peer review, including pre-caesarean consultation, mandatory secondary opinion and postcaesarean surveillance can lead to a reduction in repeat caesarean section rates. Guidelines disseminated with endorsement and support from local opinion leaders may increase the proportion of women with previous caesarean sections being offered a trial of labour in certain settings. Nurse-led relaxation classes and birth preparation classes may reduce caesarean section rates in low-risk pregnancies.

Trends and patterns of vaginal birth after cesarean availability in the United States

A review of the literature and analysis of the National Inpatient Sample Database was performed to describe the trends in vaginal birth after cesarean availability in the United States and the factors associated with changing use. Vaginal birth after cesarean increased after the first National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Cesarean Childbirth in 1981. It increased from 3% to a maximum rate of 28.3% in 1996. Despite studies reporting stable success rates of approximately 70% and low complication rates (<1%), concerns about patient safety and physician liability have led to more restrictive policies and a decrease in vaginal birth after cesarean use. The current rate is approximately 8.5%, and decreased rates have been noted for all age and ethnic groups. There is decreased use of vaginal birth after cesarean as the result of concerns about patient safety and physician liability, which has resulted in decreased availability.

Using active management of labor and vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery to lower cesarean delivery rates: aA 10-year experience

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to analyze the statistics on cesarean delivery rates and the factors that have led to a reduction in these rates.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis was done of delivery statistics from a 10-year period, January 1, 1989, to December 31, 1998. We investigated the changes made in the methods of delivery during the study period. The data were divided into 1-year periods and analyzed by chi(2) tables.

RESULTS

The overall cesarean delivery rate decreased from 16.59% to 10.92%; the primary cesarean delivery rate decreased from 9.22% to 7.11% and the repeated cesarean delivery rate from 7.37% to 3.81%. All these decreases were statistically significant. An increase in the rate of active management of labor by increasing oxytocin use and encouraging a trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery was also statistically significant. No changes in the outcome were observed in terms of neonatal morbidity and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

We found that our working plan for management of labor and delivery yielded and maintained a successful decline in the cesarean delivery rates without any negative effect on neonatal or maternal mortality rates. This low rate was maintained for a 10-year period.

Variation in elective primary cesarean delivery by patient and hospital factors

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to describe variation in elective primary cesarean rates by nonclinical factors.

STUDY DESIGN

With use of California discharge data and American Hospital Association data for 1995, patients were classified into 13 mutually exclusive categories for elective primary cesarean delivery. With use of recursive partitioning algorithms, women in each category were then studied to determine whether nonclinical factors were associated with elective primary cesarean delivery.

RESULTS

A total of 463,196 women were delivered at 288 hospitals, and the elective primary cesarean delivery rate was 4.25% (19,664/463,196). Risk for elective primary cesarean delivery varied by clinical condition. The most discriminant risk factors were hospital type (malpresentation, multiple gestation, macrosomia, other hypertension), maternal age (antepartum bleeding, uterine scar, soft tissue disorder, preterm, unspecified), and teaching status (herpes, severe hypertension, unengaged head).

CONCLUSION

This article presents methods that use administrative data to isolate and monitor the impact of nonclinical factors on the use of elective primary cesarean.