Katie Lightly1, Elisabeth Shaw2, Narges Dailami3, Dina Bisson4. 1. Speciality Trainee in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, United Kingdom. Electronic address: klightly@nhs.net. 2. Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist. Arrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, Merseyside, CH49 5PE. 3. University of West of England. Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, United Kingdom. 4. Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine personal birth preferences of obstetricians in various clinical scenarios, in particular elective caesarean section for maternal request. To determine actual rates of modes of deliveries amongst the same group. To compare the obstetrician's mode of delivery rates, to the general population. STUDY DESIGN: Following ethical approval, a piloted online survey link was sent via email to 242 current obstetricians and gynaecologists, (consultants and trainees) in South West England. Mode of delivery results were compared to regional and national population data, using Hospital Episode Statistics and subjected to statistical analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 68%. 90% would hypothetically plan a vaginal delivery, 10% would consider a caesarean section in an otherwise uncomplicated primiparous pregnancy. Of the 94/165 (60%) respondents with children (201 children), mode of delivery for the first born child; normal vaginal delivery 48%, caesarean section 26.5% (elective 8.5%, emergency 18%), instrumental 24.5% and vaginal breech 1%. Only one chose an elective caesarean for maternal request. During 2006-2011 obstetricians have the same overall actual modes of birth as the population (p=0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Ten percent of obstetricians report they would consider requesting caesarean section for themselves/their partner, which is the lowest rate reported within UK studies. However only 1% actually had a caesarean solely for maternal choice. When compared to regional/national statistics obstetricians currently have modes of delivery that are not significantly different than the population and suggests that they choose non interventional delivery if possible.
OBJECTIVE: To determine personal birth preferences of obstetricians in various clinical scenarios, in particular elective caesarean section for maternal request. To determine actual rates of modes of deliveries amongst the same group. To compare the obstetrician's mode of delivery rates, to the general population. STUDY DESIGN: Following ethical approval, a piloted online survey link was sent via email to 242 current obstetricians and gynaecologists, (consultants and trainees) in South West England. Mode of delivery results were compared to regional and national population data, using Hospital Episode Statistics and subjected to statistical analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 68%. 90% would hypothetically plan a vaginal delivery, 10% would consider a caesarean section in an otherwise uncomplicated primiparous pregnancy. Of the 94/165 (60%) respondents with children (201 children), mode of delivery for the first born child; normal vaginal delivery 48%, caesarean section 26.5% (elective 8.5%, emergency 18%), instrumental 24.5% and vaginal breech 1%. Only one chose an elective caesarean for maternal request. During 2006-2011 obstetricians have the same overall actual modes of birth as the population (p=0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Ten percent of obstetricians report they would consider requesting caesarean section for themselves/their partner, which is the lowest rate reported within UK studies. However only 1% actually had a caesarean solely for maternal choice. When compared to regional/national statistics obstetricians currently have modes of delivery that are not significantly different than the population and suggests that they choose non interventional delivery if possible.
Authors: Julia Bihler; Ralf Tunn; Christl Reisenauer; Jan Pauluschke-Fröhlich; Philipp Wagner; Harald Abele; Katharina K Rall; Gert Naumann; Markus Wallwiener; Sara Y Brucker; Markus Hübner Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 2.915