Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · AJP Rep 2021; 11(04): e142-e146
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740563
Original Article

Factors Associated with Meeting Obstetric Care Consensus Guidelines for Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex Cesarean Births

Tiffany Wang
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Hospital Center, Arlington, Virginia
,
Inga Brown
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Hospital Center, Arlington, Virginia
,
Jim Huang
3   Department of Biostatistics, MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland
,
Tetsuya Kawakita 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Michael Moxley
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Hospital Center, Arlington, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to identify factors associated with meeting the Obstetric Care Consensus (OCC) guidelines for nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex (NTSV) cesarean births.

Materials and methods This was a retrospective case control study of women with NTSV cesarean births between January 2014 and December 2017 at single tertiary care center. Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between women with NTSV cesarean births which did or did not meet OCC guidelines. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate the effect of each variable on the odds of meeting OCC guidelines.

Results There were 1,834 women with NTSV cesarean births of which 744 (40.6%) met OCC guidelines for delivery and 1,090 (59.4%) did not. After controlling for confounding factors, the odds of meeting OCC guidelines were increased for in-house providers managing with residents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.44–2.87) and without residents (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.30–2.12), compared with non-in-house providers managing without residents. There was no significant difference in the odds of meeting OCC guidelines for in-house providers managing with or without residents (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.84–1.79).

Conclusion After adjusting for confounding factors, in-house provider coverage, regardless of resident involvement, is associated with increased odds of NTSV cesarean births meeting OCC guidelines.

Key Points

  • Frequency of adherence to OCC guidelines for NTSV cesarean births was 40.6%.

  • Neither patient demographics nor comorbidities was associated with the odds of meeting OCC guidelines.

  • In-house providers are associated with increased odds of meeting OCC guidelines.

Keywords

cesarean birth - nulliparous - term - singleton - vertex - obstetrics - labor


Publication History

Received: 18 May 2020

Accepted: 08 October 2021

Article published online:
15 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: final data for 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018; 67 (01) 1-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits?. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29 (01) 7-18
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (06) 1226-1232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Osterman MJ, Martin JA. Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990-2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2014; 63 (06) 1-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (03) 693-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (05) 1181-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM. et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (04) 326.e1-326.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pasko DN, McGee P, Grobman WA. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Variation in the nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (06) 1039-1048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Declercq E, Menacker F, Macdorman M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002. Am J Public Health 2006; 96 (05) 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Spong CY. Prevention of the first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2015; 42 (02) 377-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (01) 29-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Iriye BK, Huang WH, Condon J. et al. Implementation of a laborist program and evaluation of the effect upon cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (03) 251.e1-251.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Iriye BK. Impact of obstetrician/gynecologist hospitalists on quality of obstetric care (cesarean delivery rates, trial of labor after cesarean/vaginal birth after cesarean rates, and neonatal adverse events). Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2015; 42 (03) 477-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nijagal MA, Kuppermann M, Nakagawa S, Cheng Y. Two practice models in one labor and delivery unit: association with cesarean delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (04) 491.e1-491.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Corey J, Cuartas K, Leidlein C, Pineles B, Wagner S. The influence of academic hospitalists on labor and delivery outcomes. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2020; 85 (04) 352-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Srinivas SK, Small DS, Macheras M, Hsu JY, Caldwell D, Lorch S. Evaluating the impact of the laborist model of obstetric care on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215 (06) 770.e1-770.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Feldman DS, Bollman DL, Fridman M. et al. Do laborists improve delivery outcomes for laboring women in California community hospitals?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (04) 587.e1-587.e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar