Primary Cesarean Delivery among Uncomplicated Term Nulliparous Parturients: The Influence of Group Practice Within a Community Hospital

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

In a community hospital, the rate of cesarean delivery varied significantly for uncomplicated nulliparous patients managed by four practice groups, although the rate of shoulder dystocia did not. Among four practice groups in a single center, our objective was to discern the rate of cesarean delivery (CD) among uncomplicated, term nulliparous parturients, and the likelihood of shoulder dystocia and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The inclusion criteria for this retrospective study were uncomplicated nullipara ≥ 37 weeks. Multivariable models were used for analysis. Over 2 years, 1217 women met the inclusion criteria. The overall rate of primary CD was 21%, with rates of 15%, 24%, 17%, and 32% for the four groups. After controlling for confounding variables, the rate of primary CD was significantly higher for group 2 (odd ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17, 2.42) and 4 (OR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.25, 2.68) versus groups 1 and 3 combined. Shoulder dystocia and admission to NICU did not vary between groups. Among uncomplicated term nulliparous patients, the rate of primary CD varied significantly by practice groups, without an effect on rate of shoulder dystocia or NICU admission.

REFERENCES

• 1 Visco A G, Viswanathan M, Lohr K N et al.. Cesarean delivery on maternal request.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  108 1517-1529
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman M F et al.. Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology.  Semin Perinatol. 2006;  30 235-241
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Turnquest Wells M A. Cesarean section.  Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2002;  57(7) 409-412
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Wax J R, Cartin A, Pinette M G, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review.  Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004;  59(8) 601-616
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Wagner M. Choosing cesarean section.  Lancet. 2000;  356 1677-1680
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Salihu H M, Ananth C V. Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  107 771-778
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Clark S L, Xu W, Porter T F, Love D. Institutional influences on the primary cesarean section rate in Utah, 1992 to 1995.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  179 841-845
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Fischer A, LaCoursiere D Y, Barnard P, Bloebaum L, Varner M. Differences between hospitals in cesarean rates for term primigravidas with cephalic presentation.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105 816-821
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Elliott J P, Russell M M, Dickason L A. The labor-adjusted cesarean section rate-a more informative method than the cesarean section “rate” for assessing a practitioner's labor and delivery skills.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;  177 139-143
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Poma P A. Effect of departmental policies on cesarean delivery rates: a community hospital experience.  Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  91 1013-1018
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Tussing A D, Wojtowycz M A. Malpractice, defensive medicine, and obstetric behavior.  Med Care. 1997;  35 172-191
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Alexander G R, Himes J H, Kaufman R B, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth.  Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  87 163-168
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 DeMott R K, Sandmire H F. The Green Bay Cesarean Section Study. 1. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;  162 1593-1602
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

Suneet P ChauhanM.D. 

Aurora Health Care, 8901 W. Lincoln Avenue, PAC, West Allis

WI 53227; reprints not available from the author