Showing posts with label obstetrics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obstetrics. Show all posts

Monday, July 14, 2014

Nice Is Not Enough: Questions for Interviewing a Maternity Care Provider

Many women want to choose their pregnancy care provider carefully, but aren't sure what questions to ask when interviewing doctors or midwives. 

Here are some general questions that some care providers* have suggested asking any provider you are considering during your pregnancy and birth.
  1. How do you define “normal birth”?
  2. Can you give me an example how you typically manage a normal birth?
  3. How would you feel if I disagreed with you about a procedure you recommended during labor or birth?
  4. How long will you “allow me” to wait if I go overdue?
  5. What position(s) will you allow me to use when giving birth?
  6. How do you feel about IVs and continuous fetal monitoring?
  7. How do you feel about a woman eating and drinking in labor?
  8. What are your thoughts on pain relief in labor?
  9. How do you feel about cesareans?
Some childbirth educators would substitute different questions here and there from this list but it's a reasonable basic list to start with. Adapt as necessary for your own personal situation and concerns.

Also pay close attention to the provider's response to your questions. Of course, care providers have limited amounts of time to answer questions at most visits so it's important to be considerate and concise when you ask questions, but if they are impatient with your questions or dismissive of your concerns, that's a sign you might want to look elsewhere.

There are other additional questions you might want to ask if you are a woman of size, but more on that in future posts. If anything, women of size need to be even more vigilant in asking questions of potential care providers because size bias is so prevalent in maternity care. But for now, the above questions are a reasonable start to the process.

Sample Answers to These Questions

So what are reasonable answers to the above questions? It really depends on the type of birth you are looking for and how interventive you want your care provider to be.

Some people want a totally natural birth, and some want all the interventions and machines that go PING that technology can give them. Neither approach is right or wrong; it's more a matter of what you prefer and the unique needs of your pregnancy.

However, it's far more difficult to find a provider truly supportive of natural birth than a provider that routinely uses lots of technology and interventions. So the slant of this post is going to lean more in the direction of finding someone supportive of natural birth, but readers should not infer any judgment of their own personal preferences. Again, adapt the questions to your own personal needs and preferences.

1. How do you define "normal birth"? 

To some care providers, "normal" birth means just about anything (including significant amounts of interventions), whereas to others it means an undisturbed, spontaneous labor resulting in a vaginal birth without any interventions. You can get some idea of a care provider's attitude towards birth and interventions by what they think of as "normal" in birth.

2. Can you give me an example how you typically manage a normal birth?

To some care providers, typical management includes inducing labor at 39 or 40 weeks, mandatory IV, epidural by 4 cm dilation, and active management of care (breaking the waters early in labor, aggressive management of contractions with oxytocin, etc.). To other care providers, induction is used only when medically indicated (concern over blood pressure, baby not growing well, etc.), IVs are not mandatory, epidurals are completely up to the mother's choice, and routine interventions in labor are not utilized unless medically indicated.

Again, neither is inherently right or wrong, just different ways of looking at and managing labor. By asking the question of how the care provider typically manages normal birth, they can begin to understand where the caregiver falls on the continuum of intervention.

3. How would you feel if I disagreed with you about a procedure you recommended during labor or birth?

This is an important question because it speaks to the caregiver's respect for patient autonomy and how they prefer to interact with patients. Some care providers never want their dictates questioned. Others give education on the pros and cons of procedures and make strong recommendations based on their training and knowledge, but respect the mother's right to choose for herself.

It's important to also point out that women vary greatly in their desire for informed decision-making. Some prefer to leave all the decision-making up to the care provider and don't want to be "burdened" with having to make those choices. Others want to be very involved in the decision-making. The question is designed to help you figure out which style of care you prefer, and whether that aligns with the care style of the provider you are interviewing.

4. How long will you "allow me" to wait if I go overdue?

There is a great deal of controversy about the safest time for women to go into labor. There is a small but significant risk for stillbirth as gestational age increases, but this risk has to be weighed against the significant risks of inducing labor earlier, which may increase the risk for harm from strong drugs or may increase the risk for cesarean. Current research varies quite a bit on whether a pregnancy should be induced to lower the risk for stillbirth or other poor outcomes. There is no "right" answer here, only an answer that reveals to you what your care provider routinely does.

Many care providers induce labor right at 39 or 40 weeks, some wait till 41 weeks, some wait till 42 weeks, some wait even longer as long as the baby's status is reassuring. Some prefer inducing earlier but will respect the mother's decision to wait if baby looks okay. The point is to know your care provider's preferences on this very important point and to explore how flexible they are about it.

5. What position(s) will you allow me to use when giving birth?

Most hospital births occur with the mother either flat on her back, propped up with her legs in stirrups, or with the mother pulling back on her knees ("supine" or "lithotomy" positions). This is our cultural expectation of birth, and nearly all media images of birth show this position.

In other cultures, however, many other birth positions are used, including kneeling, squatting, side-lying, hands-and-knees, and asymmetrical positions, and these labor positions have distinct advantages. Some providers are very comfortable allowing the mother to labor in positions like these, while other providers restrict the mother to only the typical hospital positions. The question is designed to help you find out how your provider feels about birth positions.

Be careful how you word the question, though. Many care providers tell you that they will "let" you labor in whatever position you want, but fail to reveal that when it comes time to actually push out the baby they want you in the usual positions. Many providers are extremely uncomfortable attending a birth in a position other than supine or lithotomy and will pressure you to change positions, even though there is quite a bit of evidence for the benefit of upright and other positions in birth.

Some women don't care about what position they give birth in or are uncomfortable experimenting with different positions. Others are adamant about having the freedom to move as their bodies dictate, especially as the baby emerges. The important thing is to find a provider that is comfortable with your preferences, so be sure to ask ahead of time about not only labor positions, but also what position they want you in for when the baby is actually coming out.

6. How do you feel about IVs and continuous fetal monitoring?

It is important to establish your provider's preferences about routine interventions like IVs and continuous fetal monitoring.

Some providers are fine with women laboring without an IV. Others mandate an IV for all their patients, while still others strike a middle course and only request that a heplock be placed so that emergency access would be faster if an IV became needed.

Although continuous fetal monitoring has not been shown to improve outcomes in low-risk women, it is still extremely common in nearly all hospitals. However, some providers are more flexible than others about when it starts, whether intermittent monitoring can be used instead, and whether mobile monitoring is allowed.

7. How do you feel about a woman eating and drinking in labor?

Some care providers and hospitals have strict rules about whether a woman is "allowed" to eat food or drink during labor, despite a lack of evidence showing harm from this practice. Many allow only ice chips to be used during labor. It is important to understand your caregiver's policies before labor.

8. What are your thoughts on pain relief in labor?

Women vary greatly in their wishes towards pain relief during labor. Some prefer to go natural, some want an epidural "in the parking lot," some would rather take a wait-and-see-if-it's-needed approach.

Some care providers are very respectful of a woman's wishes about pain management in labor. However, some practically mandate that all their patients receive an epidural, while others can be judgmental about any use of pain medications. Still others know many "tricks" to help women lower their need for pain relief in labor but are supportive of whatever the woman chooses at the time.

Respect for one's wishes regarding pain management during labor plays a strong role in women's satisfaction with their birth experience. It is vitally important to find a care provider who is aligned with your preferences and who will be supportive of your choices.

9. How do you feel about cesareans?

Some providers truly believe that vaginal birth is dangerous and that cesarean birth is to be preferred. Others believe that cesareans are to be avoided at virtually any cost. Most providers fall somewhere in between, but most tend to "lean" one way or the other. Obviously, every caregiver is supportive of cesareans when they are truly life-saving but their attitudes towards other cesareans (and the current cesarean rate in first-world countries) can be revealing about their underlying philosophies of birth and likelihood to use a cesarean.

Beware: Nice Is Not Enough

Don't let a care provider's bedside charm and personality supercede your own commonsense about interventions. A care provider can be really charming, caring, and nice and still have a 50+% c-section rate and a 40+% episiotomy rate, which will do far more harm than good in the long run.

Just because they are "nice" doesn't mean you are going to get care from them that doesn't put you at risk for more complications. 

One midwife told the story of the following doctor on her blog:
What is the definition of a “good doctor”? I once knew a physician whom everyone believed was a “good doctor”. Let’s call him Dr. Wonderful. He had a very high cesarean rate, a high episiotomy rate, a high forceps/vacuum rate, and yet his patients adored him. Why?
He made each woman who came to him feel special. He was handsome and charming, and would treat each woman as if she were the only patient in the world that mattered to him. This is not necessarily a bad thing–I believe each patient should feel special and important to her provider. However, when this perception of being special clouds a woman’s judgment, it is time to have a reality check.
Dr. Wonderful would visit his patient after whatever unnecessary procedure he did, sit by the bedside, take her hand, and very regretfully tell her how sorry he was that she needed ___________ (insert the procedure of your choice), but if he had not done it, ___________ would have happened (insert catastrophe of your choice). So he very reluctantly had heroically intervened to save her life, or the life of her baby. The woman would be trembling with gratitude toward this marvelous physician by the time he left the room. None of his patients could ever believe that any of these procedures were unnecessary.
This bait-and-switch tactic is very common among some care providers. They know how to manipulate patients into going along with what they think is best and/or what is most convenient, even when the actual research doesn't support these interventions as best practice. 

Most women think that if their doctor recommends a procedure to them, it must be necessary, and who are they to question the doctor's judgment? But most don't realize how much interventions vary from caregiver to caregiver. Nor are most given adequate information about the pros and cons of most procedures.

The point is not that all interventions are "bad" or must be avoided, but that the benefits and risks of proposed interventions should be discussed thoroughly and true patient autonomy respected, not manipulated. 

If you are sure you want a hospital birth but you'd like to try and find a provider who is more friendly to natural childbirth and patient autonomy than most, the midwife above summarized one strategy for scoping out the possibilities:
I suggest that women who are planning hospital birth call their local [Labor and Delivery] unit, and ask to speak to a nurse who enjoys helping women who want unmedicated birth. Then ask that nurse for names of doctors [or midwives] that she thinks are most likely to support you in your goals.
Last, and perhaps most important, don’t be fooled by a charming bedside manner. Make sure there is substance behind it.
Amen to that. "Nice" is wonderful, but some care providers use it as a way to convince women into all kinds of risky interventions as a way to lower the risk for being sued or because it's more convenient for him/her. 

In particular, many women of size are just so grateful just to find a doctor who doesn't yell at them about their weight that they fail to ask further questions about the provider's rates of interventions that increase the risk for cesarean (a high induction rate, inducing for suspected big baby, etc.). 

I've been there done that myself and gotten burned, so learn from my mistakes.

Don't fall for "nice" over substance. Nice is a good start, but you still have to ask further questions.

Ask for Specific Intervention Rates

It's really important to ask a provider's intervention rates, especially his/her intervention rates for first-time moms.

What's his/her induction rate, cesarean rate, episiotomy rate? 

Also observe how the provider responds to questions about these things. That's as telling as the actual intervention rate.

For example, "I only do them when necessary" is not a helpful answer; for some docs, interventions like these are seen as "necessary" 60% of the time, and that rate presents far more risk than benefit. 

For example, episiotomy rates should be quite low; if it's not, the provider is not practicing evidence-based medicine, which has clearly shown routine episiotomy to be more harmful than helpful

Many doctors say they "only do episiotomies when necessary" --- but if they find it "necessary" 40% of the time, there is something wrong with their definition of "necessary."

Moral of the story: Actual numbers are important for evaluating a provider.

Primary cesarean rates (cesareans in first-time moms or mothers who have never had a cesarean before) is another benchmark by which you can judge providers. Women who have not had cesareans before should not have a very high rate of cesareans during labor; if they do, it suggests that the doctor has a low threshold for surgery or encourages a lot of interventions that lead to more cesareans.

(Of course, if a provider regularly provides care to many high-risk women, the cesarean rate is going to be higher than a provider who mostly sees only low-risk women.....but generally speaking a high cesarean rate is a red flag.) 

It's also helpful to ask how the care provider feels about cesareans. 

If they have a high cesarean rate but are defensive about that, they'll likely say something that minimizes the impact of cesareans and ridicules the mother for caring. 

Watch out for comments like, "The real priority is a healthy baby" or "A healthy baby is more important than the delivery method".....as if that justifies any intervention the doctor uses, as if the mother's outcome is of no importance, and as if the mother questioning things means she doesn't really care about her baby over herself.

Of course the priority is a healthy baby, but a healthy mother is also a priority, and one recovering from unnecessary surgery is not a healthy mother. Nor should a woman be ridiculed for caring about avoiding a cesarean or an episiotomy whenever possible. 

A provider that avoids the question of intervention rates by blaming the mother, brushing off her concern, or making her feel selfish for caring is a giant red flag.

Beware care providers that "don't know" their cesarean rate, or who subtly deride anyone who asks questions about cesarean or episiotomy rates. All providers should have a general idea of their cesarean and episiotomy rates. If they don't, that suggests that they don't think these rates are important or aren't concerned about their use.

Also ask when/why the provider would want to induce labor. If they routinely induce labor if the baby is thought to be  "big," that's another tremendous red flag.  Research shows that inducing early for a "big baby" actually increases the cesarean rate, but despite the evidence, many providers still induce early for a big baby anyway.  [This is one major factor driving the high rate of cesareans in women of size.]

If you interview a provider and they would induce early for a big baby, this is a huge red flag.

Many providers also routinely induce labor at 39, 40 or 41 weeks, and research is mixed on the pros and cons of this practice

Particularly for women of size (whose pregnancies tend to last longer), inducing labor early or right around term "just in case" probably leads to more cesarean risk and a whole host of other potential complications. You may want to find a provider who is more willing to wait and not rush things as long as mother and baby are doing well.

Conclusion

You can have the "nicest" doctor or midwife in the world, and he or she can still coax you straight down the path to a cesarean or episiotomy you don't need by engaging in unnecessarily high rates of interventions with dubious benefits.

Being nice is just not enough. You have to ask careful questions when interviewing a care provider, you have to ask for specific intervention rates, and it's very important to watch for the classic red "alarm" flags.

What questions were most helpful to you when you were interviewing providers? What questions do you wish you had asked? What advice do you have for other pregnant women looking for maternity care providers?


*July 2014 Update: These questions were originally shared in a much longer article ("In Search of Dr. Right: 11 Questions to Ask" by The Midwife Next Door) on another website, and I gave credit and linked to that article in my original post in 2010. Sadly, the original link has since been compromised and now goes to an extremely undesirable site, so I have stripped out all those links and am re-posting this article without them. The questions are helpful so I am keeping the post; but it's important to note that it originally arose from another's work.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

CesareanRates.com: Transparency in Maternity Care

www.cesareanrates.com 

There's a new website out that I've been wanting to highlight for a while.  Now, as the author struggles to finance her work on the site, it's even more important that I publicize the site.

The site is called cesareanrates.com and it has the cesarean rates for most of the states in the U.S. and the provinces in Canada.

Most importantly, not only does it have the cesarean rates by state/province, it also has the cesarean rates by individual hospital.

Earthy-birthy types who read my blog probably already know about this wonderful resource, but others may not.  It makes for very interesting reading and I recommend the site.

Having cesarean rates available by hospital is incredibly useful information.  If you live in an area where you have the choice of more than one hospital, you can see which ones have very high baseline cesarean rates and which ones don't.

Such information has to be interpreted with caution, of course, since some hospitals have higher loads of high-risk patients who might be expected to have higher cesarean rates. This is a legitimate concern.  However, even among hospitals that serve higher-risk patient populations, cesarean rates can vary widely. So while caution has to be used when viewing this data, it still can be useful to the consumer.  Some hospitals really do have a strong climate of overutilization of cesareans, and consumers should have access to that information before choosing to become a customer of that hospital.

So let's talk a little bit more about the variations in cesarean use and the importance of transparency in cesarean rates for quality control purposes.
Image Use Disclaimer: I received express permission from creator Jill Arnold of The Unnecesarean to use the cesareanrates.com images. If you want to use them, please ask her permission first.
Variations in Cesarean Utilization

One of the attitudes we have to fight against all the time in Cesarean Awareness advocacy is the common public perception that cesareans are only done when necessary.  In other words, most people assume that if a woman had a cesarean, it was usually because she needed it and it saved her or her baby's life.

Yes, cesareans can be life-saving, and there is no doubt that having them available is a wonderful thing.  Absolutely no argument there.

However, while cesareans mostly used to be used only when truly needed, there are many cesareans being performed today that are not medically indicated.  And the strong regional variations in cesarean use just reinforce this.

Below is a chart from Jill's site of the ten hospitals with the highest c-section rates in Florida.


Now look at a chart from Jill representing the ten hospitals with the highest c-section rates in Utah.


So the hospital with the highest cesarean rate in Florida has a rate TWICE as high as the hospital with the highest cesarean rate in Utah.

Come on, are the uteri of women in Utah really that much more efficient as the uteri of women in Florida? No, of course not.  The fact is that cesarean rates are highly variable by region, by hospital, and by doctor, and many of these variations are not explainable by demographic differences or risk caseload.

Even within one regional area with similar demographics and patient risk profiles (and eliminating cesareans for indications like breech, thought to be "necessary" by some providers), cesarean rates can vary widely.


While doctors like to blame women for high c-section rates (the overused "women are too old or too fat" or "women are requesting these cesareans" arguments), the truth is that provider practice patterns have far more influence on cesarean rates than factors attributable to women themselves.

The Childbirth Connection, an organization devoted to improving maternity care, confirms this trend:
The cesarean rate varies broadly across states and areas of the country, hospitals, and maternity professionals. Most of this variation is due to "practice style" rather than differences in the needs and preferences of childbearing women.
In other words, your chances of "needing" a cesarean at one hospital in your area may be quite different than your chances of "needing" a cesarean in a different hospital in your area.  Even if you fall into a supposedly "high-risk" category, your chances of "needing" a cesarean can vary widely, depending on who you see and their practice patterns around birth.

While some cesareans truly are prudent and at times even life-saving, many cesareans performed today are not.  Women deserve to know which hospitals have high rates of cesarean utilization and which do not, so that they can make informed choices about where they go to birth, should they choose to have a hospital birth.

Caveats

I would like to tell you that hospital-level cesarean rates area available for all 50 states, but alas, that's not true.  Last I checked Jill's site, the following states did not have hospital-level information about cesarean rates available:
Why is this information not available uniformly? The reasons vary. Some states don't think consumers are interested in this information and so don't provide it. Or pencil-pushers decide that providing cesarean rates to the public is not a Department of Health budget priority.  A few states have decided that health consumers have no right to this information and refuse to release hospital-level cesarean rates, despite many requests to do so.

There is information in each of the links above on how to contact these states directly to request that this information be made public.  Sometimes, if a state gets enough requests, they make providing hospital-level cesarean rates more of a priority.  (We were able to do this recently in my state.)

On the other hand, sometimes states actively refuse to provide hospital-level cesarean rates because doctors have actively campaigned to keep these rates private, on the grounds that the public is not smart enough to understand the concept of mitigating factors (like a high-risk caseload, etc.).  Or they simply don't want the bad publicity for their hospitals.

This is ridiculous.

As health consumers, we deserve to have public health information about various hospitals and their quality of care.  And we deserve this information for maternity-related care as well as basic overall care.  

The Importance of Transparency

Transparency is a HUGE up-and-coming issue in healthcare.  As one quality watchdog group notes:
You may not realize there are differences in the quality of care provided by different hospitals. Hospitals are busy and complex places. Every day, hundreds of patients are receiving hundreds of different procedures. Medical mistakes are a leading cause of death each year, causing more deaths each year than car accidents, breast cancer and AIDS. 
There is good news! Hospitals can take steps to prevent mistakes and protect patients from unnecessary injury. Even better, there is information available to help you determine the quality of your local hospitals.
More and more, groups such as consumerreports.org and the Leapfrog Group have begun to document basic information on Quality of Care measures, such as which hospitals have high rates of hospital-acquired infections, which have poor overall patient safety, and which have high rates of medical mistakes or medication errors.

However, these quality monitoring efforts are in their infancy.  Some hospitals participate voluntarily, but some actively resist any attempt to shine a spotlight more closely on care practices. Yet experience shows that when substandard results are highlighted and a program is developed to address these issues, outcomes can be improved.

It is important to be careful when comparing results from different hospitals, but even with this caution in mind, transparency in Quality of Care measures can be useful in improving care and patient outcomes.

Transparency and Participatory Medicine are concepts whose time has come.

How does this translate to maternity care?  In maternity care, substandard care translates to high rates of maternal or neonatal infections, high rates of early scheduled deliveries, higher-than-average deaths, and a too-high cesarean rate.

Some hospitals would argue that a high cesarean rate is not a sign of substandard care. The World Health Organization disagrees, noting that high rates of non-medically indicated cesareans translate into a higher rate of adverse maternal outcomes, including admission to Intensive Care Units, blood transfusions, hysterectomies, and maternal deaths. Other risks include blood clots, wound infections, anesthesia accidents and other problems.  Clearly, overuse of cesareans has risks.

There is an ongoing argument over what the "most optimal" cesarean rate should be, but that's beside the point.  Whatever the "ideal" rate is, women deserve to know the baseline cesarean rate of their hospital of choice, and how that compares to other hospitals.  Then it is up to them which hospital they choose.

Final Thoughts

CesareanRates.com is a powerful new tool for healthcare consumers.

One of the many useful things on the website is the listing of the cesarean rates of all the U.S. states (both alphabetically and by highest-to-lowest rates). There is also a graph showing the increase in cesarean rates over time in the U.S.  Rates from the Canadian Provinces are available as well.

I like the Top Ten slideshow, where slides from several representative states list the hospitals with the highest cesarean rates in those states.  You'll see that quite a few hospitals have c-section rates around 50%-60%, while other states' rates are not nearly so high. This is a good micro-demonstration of how much variation there can be in cesarean rates from hospital to hospital and state to state.  (Click on the page number on the bottom to freeze a particular state's slide.)

Another useful thing is a state-by-state listing of the VBAC ban policies of individual hospitals.  This information can already be obtained from the International Cesarean Awareness Network’s VBAC Policy Database but it's useful to have it all in one place with the hospital-level cesarean rates.

You can read more here about why Jill Arnold created this new site:
CesareanRates.com is a snapshot of online cesarean rate reporting in the United States as of January 2012. The site compiles the most current hospital-level data accessible to the public online, whether reported directly by a state’s department of health or gathered from state hospital association web sites via pull-down menus. The initial goals of the site are to a) show the (poor) quality and inaccessibility of hospital-level information available to the public, b) to assess whether there is public demand for this information and c) to work toward establishing a precedent for hospital data transparency.
How might this site be useful for a typical healthcare consumer?  Jill elaborates on that question here:
As with everything pregnant people can get their hands on, it is one of many tools. Everyone makes decisions differently and weighs things based on their unique experiences, values, preferences and education. For example, a 60% total cesarean rate might trigger a different reaction for different people. A woman that passionately wants to avoid an unnecessary cesarean section might be deterred from giving birth there, while one hoping for an elective primary section might infer something about the culture of the hospital and seek a provider that delivers babies there. Another person might try to evaluate what exactly that means and start investigating why it is so high, while someone else might not care one way or the other where they give birth as long as they are with a care provider they like. 
Ideally, it would be nice to see the site used by pregnant people for the purpose of seeking preference-sensitive care and opening up dialogue with their provider about what they can expect at the hospitals at which their provider has privileges.
If you want to know more about how cesarean rate information is reported. watch the following short video on the technical aspects of such data collection.



Go, check out www.cesareanrates.com. If you get an additional moment, go to its Facebook Page and "like" it as well.  Blog about it and pass on the link so more people know about this invaluable resource.

And if you can, donate to the author so she can continue carrying on this work.


Thank you, Jill, for your hard work on this site.  Brava!


References

Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 Sep-Oct;25(5):w355-67. Epub 2006 Aug 8. Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Baicker K, Buckles KS, Chandra A.   PMID: 16895942
There is enormous geographic variation in the use of cesarean delivery: For births over 2,500 grams, adjusted cesarean rates vary fourfold between low- and high-use areas. Even for births under 2,500 grams, high-use counties have rates that are double those of low-use ones. Higher cesarean rates are only partially explained by patient characteristics but are greatly influenced by nonmedical factors such as provider density, the capacity of the local health care system, and malpractice pressure. Areas with higher usage rates perform the intervention in medically less appropriate populations-that is, relatively healthier births-and do not see improvements in maternal or neonatal mortality.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;196(6):526.e1-5. Variation in the rates of operative delivery in the United States. Clark SL, et al.   PMID: 17547880
OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to examine the national and regional rates of operative delivery among almost one quarter million births in a single year in the nation's largest healthcare delivery system, using variation as an arbiter of the quality of decision making. STUDY DESIGN: We compared the variation in rates of primary cesarean and operative vaginal delivery in facilities of the Hospital Corporation of America during the year 2004. RESULTS: In 124 facilities representing almost 220,000 births during a 1-year period, the primary cesarean and operative vaginal delivery rates were 19% +/- 5% (range 9-37) and 7% +/- 4% (range 1-23). Within individual geographic regions, we consistently found variations of 200-300% in rates of primary cesarean delivery and variations approximating an order of magnitude for operative vaginal delivery. CONCLUSION: Within broad upper and lower limits, rates of operative delivery in the United States are highly variable and suggest a pattern of almost random decision making. This reflects a lack of sufficient reliable, outcomes-based data to guide clinical decision making.
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;115(6):1201-8. Regional variation in the cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates. Hanley GE, Janssen PA, Greyson D.   PMID: 20502291
OBJECTIVE: To examine regional variations in rates of primary cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery in the population of British Columbia, while adjusting for the maternal characteristics and conditions that increase the likelihood of operative delivery. METHODS: Using data from the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry, we studied all deliveries in British Columbia between 2004 and 2007, excluding women who had a previous cesarean delivery (n=116,839)...RESULTS: Crude primary cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates varied markedly across the Health Service Delivery Areas ranging from 16.1 to 27.5 per 100 deliveries, and from 8.6 to 18.6 per 100 deliveries, respectively. The most common indication for cesarean delivery was dystocia, which accounted for 30.0% of all cesarean deliveries and varied more than fivefold across regions. After controlling for maternal characteristics and conditions known to increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery, adjusted cesarean delivery rates varied twofold, ranging from 14.7 to 27.6 per 100 deliveries, while adjusted assisted vaginal delivery rates varied by more than twofold, ranging from 6.5 to 15.3 per 100 deliveries. CONCLUSION: Our results illustrate substantial regional variation in the use of cesarean delivery that cannot be explained by patient illness or preferences. This variation likely reflects differences in practitioners' approaches to medical decision-making.
Birth. 2005 Sep;32(3):170-8. Cesarean delivery in Native American women: are low rates explained by practices common to the Indian health service? Mahoney SF, Malcoe LH. PMID: 16128970
BACKGROUND: Studying populations with low cesarean delivery rates can identify strategies for reducing unnecessary cesareans in other patient populations...METHODS: We used a case-control design nested within a cohort of Native American live births, > or = 35 weeks of gestation (n = 789), occurring at an Indian Health Service hospital during 1996-1999... RESULTS: The total cesarean rate was 9.6 percent (95% CI 7.2-12.0). Nulliparity, a medical diagnosis, malpresentation, induction, labor length > 12.1 hours, arrested labor, fetal distress, meconium, and gestations < 37 weeks were each significantly associated with cesarean delivery in unadjusted analyses. The final multivariate model included a significant interaction between induction and arrested labor (p < 0.001); the effect of arrested labor was far greater among induced (OR 161.9) than noninduced (OR 6.0) labors. Other factors significantly associated with cesarean delivery in the final logistic model were an obstetrician labor attendant (OR 2.4; p = 0.02) and presence of meconium (OR 2.3; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher prevalence of medical risk factors for cesarean delivery, the rate at this hospital was well below New Mexico (16.4%, all races) and national (21.2%, all races) cesarean rates for 1998. Medical and practice-related factors were the only observed independent correlates of cesarean delivery. Implementation of institutional and practitioner policies common to the Indian Health Service may reduce cesarean deliveries in other populations.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

A 50-75% Chance of "Needing" a Cesarean?

Another gem from My OB Said What?!?
“You Have A 50-75% Chance Of Needing A Cesarean Section Next Time…” 
“You have a 50-75% chance of needing a cesarean section next time, because you are short and overweight.” 
– Perinatologist to mother during preconception meeting...after the mother had already had a successful vaginal birth
This is how many doctors perceive us because of our size (both height and weight).  They simply conclude that there is virtually no way for us to birth a baby vaginally, never considering that their own biases around size and their common interventions with short/fat women (inducing early, having a low threshold for surgery) influences these outcomes.

The kicker here is that this woman has already had a vaginal birth, and despite difficult conditions too.  Once you've had a vaginal birth, your chances of having another is greatly increased....yet in his eyes, this doesn't really count at all if you are fat and short.

Older women get the same kind of grief.  And so do VBAC moms.  And it's all nonsense, frankly.

Yes, there is some research showing higher c-section rates in fat women, older women, short women, blah blah blah.  But RARELY do they consider whether it's really that "risk factor" or instead the way they manage the labors of these women and the fear they have around these risk factors that increases the cesarean rate more than the risk factor itself.

In obstetric research,the problem is always assumed to be with the woman.  Not the care provider's management or perceptions of risk, but somehow the fault of the woman herself (or her obesity, or her age, or her shortness, yadda yadda). I almost never see studies raise the question of provider perception or management at all.

It's time for care providers to recognize that their management of women is an integral part of high c-section rates in certain groups...not the only factor, but a much stronger factor than is generally acknowledged.

I have a dear online friend who is currently having a difficult time finding a provider who will support her for a VBAC.  This despite the fact that she has already had TWO VBACs.  It doesn't matter; they just see that she's fat and had a prior cesarean.

This is really pissing me off. Especially since I'm all of the above.  I'm short, "morbidly obese", old, and a VBAC mom.  Most doctors would look at me and tell me I had NO chance of having a vaginal birth because of these four risk factors....and yet I did.  Twice.

Risk factors are not absolute sentences. MOST women, even with risk factors, can birth just fine, if they can just get care providers to "let" them have an adequate chance at it.

It's long past time for care providers (and researchers) to recognize that the way providers manage and perceive women with risk factors has a lot to do with the outcomes associated with them.




Friday, April 23, 2010

Elective Inductions and Elective Cesareans - No Big Deal?

Think elective inductions or elective cesareans are no big deal?  Check out the abstract of this recent study.  [And remember the higher rate of inductions and "elective" cesareans in women of size and consider the implications there too.]


Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks' gestation

Dunne C, Da Silva O, Schmidt G, Natale R.  J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Dec;31(12):1124-30. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes after elective induction of labour and elective Caesarean section with outcomes after spontaneous labour in women with low-risk, full-term pregnancies.

METHODS: We extracted birth data from 1996 to 2005 from an obstetrical database. Singleton pregnancies with vertex presentation, anatomically normal, appropriately grown fetuses, and no medical or surgical complications were included. Outcomes after elective induction of labour and elective Caesarean section were compared with the outcomes after spontaneous labour, using chi-square and Student t tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS: A total of 9686 women met the study criteria (3475 nulliparous, 6211 multiparous).

The incidence of unplanned Caesarean section was higher in nulliparous women undergoing elective induction than in those with spontaneous labour (P < 0.001).

Postpartum complications were more common in nulliparous and multiparous women undergoing elective induction (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively) and multiparous women undergoing elective Caesarean section, (P < 0.001).

Rates of triage in NICU were higher in nulliparous women undergoing elective Caesarean section (P < 0.01), and requirements for neonatal free-flow oxygen administration were higher in nulliparous and multiparous women undergoing elective Caesarean section (P < 0.01 for each).

Unplanned Caesarean section was 2.7 times more likely in nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labour (95% CI 1.74 to 4.28, P < 0.001) and was more common among nulliparous and multiparous women undergoing induction of labour and requiring cervical ripening (P < 0. 001 and P < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Elective induction leads to more unplanned Caesarean sections in nulliparous women and to increased postpartum complications for both nulliparous and multiparous women. Elective Caesarean section has increased maternal and neonatal risks.

PubMedID: 20085677

 
Simplified Glossary: 
 
nulliparous - no previous births
multiparous - previous births
elective - (in this context) not medically necessary
NICU - Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Choosing a Birth Care Provider - Which Type?

Some online friends of mine wrote this article for their local paper.  I gave feedback and helped during the editing process, and liked the final product so much I thought I'd share it here on my blog.  I offer it for those of you who are scratching your heads over figuring out how midwives and doctors differ. 

Again, I emphasize that no one type of provider is suitable for all women.  Some women prefer high-tech care with lots of tests and/or an epidural in the parking lot.  Some women prefer low-tech care, with minimal or no tests and birth as natural as possible.  Others want something in between.  There's nothing wrong with any of these types of births as long as you are clear on what you want and why.

Some women prefer that their doctors do all the decision-making, while other women prefer to be partners in their decision-making.  Some women prefer to birth in the hospital, and some prefer to birth outside the hospital (at a birth center or at home).

There no one "right" way to give birth for everyone. But if they explore their feelings, most people find they have ideals about how they want to be treated in pregnancy and birth, how they picture birthing their babies, and what kind of care they are looking for.  When I teach childbirth classes, I always encourage parents to explore the spectrum of possibilities and consider what fits best with their ideals.  In time, they usually find the right path (and provider) for them.

It's important to remember that the care provider's job title does not necessarily mean they practice in that same care model.  In other words, some doctors actually follow the hands-off tenets of the midwifery (physiological) model of care, while some midwives are high-tech and interventive like the medical (technological) model of care.  Although job titles and degree letters give you generalized clue to their practice style and philosophy, it's not a guarantee of anything.  You always have to ask questions.

Readers of the blog know that I tend to favor midwifery (as does the following article; fair warning) and have usually had my best experiences with midwives, but one of the worst experiences I ever had was with a homebirth midwife who was actually a high-intervention OB in sheep's clothing...at home, no less.  I also have met OBs who are very hands-off and low-tech.You can't tell someone's philosophy solely from their job title; interview carefully to see what their real pattern of practice is like.

I usually suggest that prospective parents interview several types of care providers, including some OBs, some CNMs, and some homebirth midwives.  Reflecting on these interviews usually helps clarify their choices for them.  Most people come away with a clearer idea of the type of care (and care provider) they prefer.

Here then is the article.  I hope you find it helpful.


Choosing a birth provider can be difficult

By Christa Billings and Amy Poe
From the Portland Tribune, Mar 25, 2010
http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=126946379588406800
Regarding Peter Korn’s article “Natural birth? Nope, C-Section rates on rise” (Feb. 18), one of the most important decisions new parents are faced with is choosing a birth provider. It is also one of the most difficult and confusing decisions to make.

The truth is that there is no one perfect location or type of provider for all women. We all come to our births with our own experiences, beliefs, personal health and genetics, and each mother has to come to know her own needs in order to choose the most optimal provider and setting for her birth.

There are two basic models of maternity care: the physiological (midwifery) model and the technological model (obstetrics). Each has its own advantages.

The physiological/midwifery model recognizes birth as a natural event. Care is centered on the woman and baby as a pair, and each pair is recognized to have its own set of experiences and unique health considerations. In this model, the birth providers spend a considerable amount of time with the parents, getting to know their physical and emotional needs and providing them with important information on their pregnancy and birth choices.

While the midwifery model emphasizes the partnership between the mother and provider in the birth process, the technological model views the birth provider as the expert whose job it is to control and manage the pregnancy, labor and birth. Normal birth is narrowly defined, and the provider is trained to treat any deviation from normal as a pathology needing intervention. The provider relies heavily on testing, monitoring and technological intervention in assessing and controlling the situation.

Statistically, both models of care can and do result in healthy babies most of the time. The primary differences between the two models are the type of care the mother receives during the pregnancy and her role in the actual birth – whether she is the active decision-maker (in partnership with her provider), or whether she delegates the control of her labor to an expert.

Naturally, it is always important to check the credentials and references of any provider you are considering, be it a direct-entry midwife, certified nurse-midwife, naturopath, family practice doctor, or obstetrician. But it is just as important to understand which model of care the provider practices, and whether that is compatible with your own beliefs about birth.

It’s important to realize that the provider’s title does not guarantee which model of care they practice. Midwives can order the same labs and screening tests as doctors, and some are very technology-oriented. Conversely, an OB-GYN may firmly believe in the normalcy and diversity of birth, and have a low technological intervention rate.

Midwifery care is a natural, holistic and wellness-oriented view of pregnancy and birth. Midwifery care focuses on the pregnancy as normal and healthy, rather than pathological. Most midwives believe in a proactive approach to wellness. They try to prevent complications in the first place by emphasizing healthy behaviors. If complications do arise, they take steps to work with you and your baby to deal with them instead of treating a complication like a disaster waiting to happen.

Time and patience can be one of the biggest benefits of midwifery care. Many doctors have strict time limits for labor, after which a cesarean is performed. Midwives believe that if the mom and baby are not in distress and all vital signs are reassuring, there is no need to hurry a birth. Every woman’s body and birth are different, and not all strictly adhere to a “typical” labor curve. Many babies come out naturally if given a bit more time and patience.

Many women have heard of midwives but are unaware of research showing improved outcomes with midwives. Examples include the interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women, on the Web at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9096532, and the outcomes of planned hospital birth attended by midwives compared with physicians in British Columbia, on the Web at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/181/6-7/377.

Midwives are experts in normal birth, and most births proceed normally, with good outcomes, if allowed a little time and patience. However, sometimes more intervention is needed, and midwives are trained to recognize when intervention or technology is needed. At that time, they have obstetric colleagues to whom they refer their clients, while still following up to assure continuity of care. It is at those times that we can be grateful for the surgical skills and capabilities of our obstetricians and hospitals.

Not only does midwifery care lead to fewer infections, inductions, episiotomies, vacuum/forceps extractions and cesarean sections, but midwives also tend to the emotional, spiritual, and health and nutritional needs of the mother from the start of the pregnancy through labor and birth and for several weeks after the baby is born.

Choosing your type of birth provider is a critical choice in your care. Oftentimes, parents spend more time researching and picking out nursery décor than they do choosing a provider who meets all their needs. For some women, an OBGYN is the right type of provider and for others it is a midwife. Taking the time to do your research on choosing the right provider for you can have an effect on the outcome of your birth.

Christa Billings of Beaverton, and Amy Poe of http://www.birthmatters.info/

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Why VBAC Bans are a Violation of Human Rights

The International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN) recently held a blog carnival about why VBAC is a vital option.  If you can, you should definitely go check out some of the different entries about why having the choice to VBAC is important.

[For those unfamiliar with the terms, VBAC stands for Vaginal Birth After Cesarean, pronounced "vee-back."  In the United States today, more than 90% of women who have a cesarean will have cesareans with future children.  Some women choose this happily, but many are forced into it because the option to have a VBAC has been taken away in nearly 50% of U.S. hospitals today.  Not because VBAC is unsafe or women don't want to have them, but because doctors and administrators -- or malpractice insurance companies -- refuse to "let" women have them.]

VBAC bans are a Human Rights Issue, plain and simple. No one should be forced to have surgery against their will. 

Doctors will argue that not offering VBACs is not "forcing" a woman into surgery, but in essence it is if there are no other options in her area for having a VBAC or if the conditions in places that do "offer" VBAC are so restrictive that almost no one will get one. 

Doctors need to stop pussyfooting around the issue and quit splitting hairs; if their hospital or practice does not offer VBAC as a choice, they are denying women the right to choose how they give birth, and in essence, FORCING women into surgery.  How does that align with the oath of "First, Do No Harm?"

Ideally, women are given true informed consent about VBAC vs. Elective Repeat Cesarean Section (ERCS), and their choices are honored. Of course, sometimes that does happen; but far too often women's decisions for VBAC are not honored, and their choices are taken from them.

Sometimes women are literally bulled into repeat cesareans with threats (like calling Child Protective Services). Sometimes they labor at home and go in pushing.....only to be put under anesthesia and forced into a repeat section when they get to the hospital.  (Yes, I know women to whom this has happened.)

More often women are seduced into repeat cesareans with distorted information about risks of VBACs vs. cesareans, inaccurately gloomy assessments of their ability to VBAC, or scare tactics about possible complications of VBAC without similar information about possible complications of repeat cesareans. 

Talking people into potentially harmful interventions without fair and balanced informed consent -- and the freedom to refuse the intervention -- is a human rights violation.

In no other situation is a person forced to undergo surgery for the benefit of another person.  Furthermore, one could argue that with VBACs, people are being forced to undergo surgery for the medico-legal security and the financial benefit of others

This is such a complete and total breach of medical ethics it's breathtaking.....and yet many doctors, hospital administrators, and insurance company officials readily advocate it.  They refuse to see the implications of their decisions and policies.

Everyone has the right to bodily integrity and to informed decision-making. No one should be able to take that right from you, not "even" during childbearing.

Violence and intimidation against women does not just occur via domestic violence or rape. Unfortunately, it also happens during childbearing, but our society does not view it as an abuse of rights....but it is.

It's time to see VBAC bans as the human rights violation that they are.

Shame on ACOG, and shame on the doctors and hospitals who are going along with these bans.