Literature DB >> 26909212

Decisions to Perform Emergency Caesarean Sections at a University Hospital: Do obstetricians agree?

Silja A Pillai1, Gowri Vaidyanathan1, Maryam Al-Shukri1, Tamima R Al-Dughaishi1, Shahila Tazneem1, Durdana Khan1, Saniya El-Tayeb1, Mariam Mathew1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to assess the degree of agreement amongst obstetricians regarding decisions to perform emergency Caesarean section (CS) procedures at a university hospital.
METHODS: This retrospective clinical audit was carried out on 50 consecutive emergency CS procedures performed between November 2012 and March 2013 on women with singleton pregnancies at the Sultan Qaboos University Hospital in Muscat, Oman. Data on each procedure were collected from electronic patient records and independently reviewed by six senior obstetricians to determine agreement with the decision.
RESULTS: Of the 50 women who underwent CS procedures, the mean age was 28.9 ± 5.1 years and 48% were primigravidae. A total of 65% of the CS procedures were category I. The most common indications for a CS was a non-reassuring fetal heart trace (40%) and dystocia (32%). There was complete agreement on the decision to perform 62% of the CS procedures. Five and four obstetricians agreed on 80% and 95% of the procedures, respectively. The range of disagreement was 4-20%. Disagreement occurred primarily with category II and III procedures compared to category I. Additionally, disagreement occurred in cases where the fetal heart trace pattern was interpreted as an indication for a category II CS.
CONCLUSION: The majority of obstetricians agreed on the decisions to perform 94% of the emergency CS procedures. Obstetric decision-making could be improved with the implementation of fetal scalp pH testing facilities, fetal heart trace interpretation training and cardiotocography review meetings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Caesarean Section; Cardiotocography; Clinical Audit; Consensus; Decision Making; Emergency; Fetal Monitoring; Oman

Year:  2016        PMID: 26909212      PMCID: PMC4746042          DOI: 10.18295/squmj.2016.16.01.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J        ISSN: 2075-051X


  15 in total

1.  Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study.

Authors:  Fernando Althabe; Claudio Sosa; José M Belizán; Luz Gibbons; Frederique Jacquerioz; Eduardo Bergel
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.689

2.  Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America.

Authors:  José Villar; Eliette Valladares; Daniel Wojdyla; Nelly Zavaleta; Guillermo Carroli; Alejandro Velazco; Archana Shah; Liana Campodónico; Vicente Bataglia; Anibal Faundes; Ana Langer; Alberto Narváez; Allan Donner; Mariana Romero; Sofia Reynoso; Karla Simônia de Pádua; Daniel Giordano; Marius Kublickas; Arnaldo Acosta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-06-03       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Caesarean section: the paradox.

Authors:  Fernando Althabe; José M Belizán
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-10-28       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Carine Ronsmans; Sara Holtz; Cynthia Stanton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-10-28       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates.

Authors:  Ana P Betrán; Mario Merialdi; Jeremy A Lauer; Wang Bing-Shun; Jane Thomas; Paul Van Look; Marsden Wagner
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.980

Review 6.  Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology.

Authors:  Fay Menacker; Eugene Declercq; Marian F Macdorman
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.300

7.  Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate.

Authors:  Emma L Barber; Lisbet S Lundsberg; Kathleen Belanger; Christian M Pettker; Edmund F Funai; Jessica L Illuzzi
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Intrapartum fetal stimulation tests: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel W Skupski; Carl R Rosenberg; Gary S Eglinton
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Births: final data for 2009.

Authors:  Joyce A Martin; Brady E Hamilton; Stephanie J Ventura; Michelle J K Osterman; Sharon Kirmeyer; T J Mathews; Elizabeth C Wilson
Journal:  Natl Vital Stat Rep       Date:  2011-11-03

10.  Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates.

Authors:  José M Belizán; Fernando Althabe; María Luisa Cafferata
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.