Just “Reducing C-Sections” shouldn’t be a goal

The Pediatric Insider

© 2017 Roy Benaroch, MD

Consumer Reports today released a report critical of the c-section rates of many US hospitals. Titled “Your biggest c-section risk may be your hospital”, the article encourages parents to choose a hospital based on c-section rates. The lower, the better.

That’s misguided advice, and focuses attention on the wrong parameter. Parents should concentrate on improving their odds of a healthy and safe delivery for mom and baby. Knowing the overall c-section rate of a hospital doesn’t tell you anything at all about whether the babies born there are healthy.

In an ideal world, we would easily be able to tell exactly which mom-baby pairs need a c-section. Sometimes, it is easy to tell – mom’s past medical history, or something about the baby, makes a c-section very clearly necessary. But most of the time, c-sections are a decision made based on “risk reduction”. And that’s not an exact science. We know that some babies with a certain kind of fetal heart tracing may be headed for trouble – they’re at an “increased risk” of problems with delivery (and those problems can be devastating, leading to death or permanent neurologic disability.) But most of the time, even these “higher risk” babies can probably labor longer, and could probably be born vaginally and do fine. But what’s probably? What if you were told your baby had a 1 in 3 chance of severe complications? Or a 1 in 50 chance of having brain damage, and never being able to walk? Would 1 in 100 be a reasonable risk, or 1 in 500? We do c-sections to mitigate, or reduce, those risks. It’s up to midwives and moms and obstetricians to discuss these risks and decide on the best course of action for each individual mom in labor.

The article points out that over half of the hospitals surveyed – or “nearly 6 in 10” — have a c-section rate above the rate of 23.9% established as a goal by the US Department of Health and Human Services. But that means that close to half of the hospitals actually had a c-section rate somewhat less than the government target. But the CR headline doesn’t read “Nearly half of hospitals aren’t doing enough c-sections.”

By the way, I have no idea where that 23.9% goal comes from. I know of no data that explicitly determines the percentage of c-sections that is ideal for health. I don’t think any such data exist, or that there even could be “one number” that’s perfect for every community.

Although the survey did try to look at the reasons behind c-section variability at hospitals, those can be difficult numbers to quantify. We know older moms, and overweight moms, are more likely to need a c-section – so hospitals catering to those groups are being unfairly targeted for their high c-section rates. (One reason why c-section rates have crept up over the last few decades is the changing demographics of pregnancy in the US. There are more twins, too.) In fact, if I were a hospital administrator who wanted to brag about my low c-section rates, I’d just drop out of the business of seeing high-risk pregnancies, or catering to older or obese women. That hospital would “win” the low c-section sweepstakes! But is that the best way to take care of women – to neglect the ones that make our hospital numbers look bad?

Also – and I know I’m going to lose some of you with this – I’m not entirely comfortable with the overall message here that even elective, non-medical c-sections are bad and should be discouraged. Moms deserve honest, science-based advice on the pros and cons of both vaginal and c-section delivery, tailored to their own circumstances and health histories. If a mom, given good information, decides that even without a specific medical indication she’d prefer to get a c-section, is that wrong? Aren’t we past the point where doctors are supposed to tell their patients what to do? And aren’t we past the point where women should be told what to do by their man-doctors? (Parenthetically, all of the MDs interviewed for the CR story were men*. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.)

C-section rates are one measure of a hospital – and for women who put a top priority on having a vaginal delivery, this Consumer Reports article gives some helpful information. But I don’t think most women ought to focus on that one parameter, or worry about taking steps to avoid a c-section. That’s my judgement, but you pregnant women should make up your own minds. I don’t think the “23.9 percenters” ought to try to take that decision away from you.

 

*Neel, Elliott, Aaron, Gilad, Robert – I’m assuming these are all male first names.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Medical problems

4 Comments on “Just “Reducing C-Sections” shouldn’t be a goal”

  1. pojtastic Says:

    How much does the hospital influence the frequency of c-sections? Shouldn’t that be a decision between the woman and her doctor? I’ve given birth three times (vaginally, for the record), and I don’t recall the hospital having much of a say in what we did or didn’t do.

    Like

  2. Erin Says:

    I thought this was a (somewhat) ridiculous article too. I mean, did they control for the hospital being a center for high-risk births? For example, in the Twin Cities, the U of M has a level 4 NICU and our local children’s hospital has a level 3 and level 4 NICUs. But there’s a lot of other hospitals that don’t have high-level care and a few that I don’t think even have well baby nurseries, so I would guess there would be more c-sections at the hospitals with more high-risk births.

    Like


  3. I agree, and you might also be interested in this article I wrote on the same subject in 2016:

    http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Service-Focus/caesarean-rates-dont-indicate-quality-of-care-and-targets-are-dangerous#

    Thank you for such a great post.

    Like

  4. DT Says:

    With my firstborn, my wife was under care of a crappy obgyn, who, despite a late ultrasound which should have clued her in and 12+ hours of oxytocin, broke my wife’s water without her consent and forced a vaginal delivery. She missed the fact that the umbilical cord was wrapped around his throat and tore his head trying to suck him out. Strangled on delivery, it took several minutes to get him properly breathing, the tear on his head lead to a case of jaundice, and the lack of oxygen at delivery resulted in epilepsy that reared its ugly head while he was in Kindergarten.
    The rest of our lives we’ll be left wondering how things would have turned out differently if he had been delivered via C-section.
    C-section haters can shut up. It’s a form of parent shaming.
    Breast feeding is another one… my wife never produced much milk, and landed herself in the hospital for a 3 day, 2 night stay for dehydration because she was trying so hard to keep our second child breast fed. This three days after she already went to ER for dehydration, because she came right home and breast fed because, well, baby’s hungry.
    With our first it was worse because the poor boy’s intestines couldn’t handle it. He screamed all day. Change in mom’s diet, nothing. We tried GentleEase, nothing. Only once we got him on Nutramigen did he finally settle into being a normal happy baby. Fortunately insurance paid for the formula.
    Formula haters can go suck eggs. More parent shaming.
    I’m also a little miffed at the constant pressure to remove fat from our children’s diets. Just took our second child for a well check up and the survey paper they gave us wanted to know if we fed him more than one high fat food per week. Yeah, like if we give him pizza two times a week he’s going to turn into a beach ball. Guess what? Mother’s milk (human) is 4% fat. Fat is very important in brain development. Since the 1970s until recently it’s been “get rid of the fat” without much worry about the sugar. Americans have ended up overweight and mentally dull. Coincidence? I think not.
    Childhood diet shamers can go jump into a river. More parent shaming.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: