A survey of access to trial of labor in California hospitals in 2012

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Elena Gates⁵  Megan DeLain⁴  Sage Bearman¹  Jennifer Templeton Dunn²  Mary K Barger³ 

[1] Department of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA;University of California, Hastings San Francisco, CA, USA;Department of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA;UCSF/UC Hastings Consortium on Law, Science, & Health Policy, San Francisco, CA, USA;Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

关键词: Access to care;    Vaginal birth after cesarean;    Trial of labor after cesarean;   

Others  :  1138097
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-13-83

 received in 2012-12-03, accepted in 2013-03-13,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

In 2010, the NIH and ACOG recommended increasing women’s access to trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This study explored access to TOLAC in California, change in access since 2007 and 2010, and characteristics of TOLAC and non-TOLAC hospitals.

Methods

Between November 2011 and June 2012, charge nurses at all civilian California birth hospitals were surveyed about hospitals’ TOLAC availability and requirements for providers. VBAC rates were obtained from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Distance between hospitals was calculated using OSHPD geocoding.

Results

All 243 birth hospitals that were contacted participated. In 2010, among the 56% TOLAC hospitals, the median VBAC rate among TOLAC hospitals was 10.8% (range 0-37.3%). The most cited reason for low VBAC rates was physician unwillingness to perform them, especially due to the requirement to be continually present during labor. TOLAC hospitals were more likely to be larger hospitals in urban communities with obstetrical residency training. However, there were six (11.3%) residency programs in non-TOLAC hospitals and 5 (13.5%) rural hospitals offering TOLAC. The majority of TOLAC hospitals had 24/7 anesthesia coverage and required the obstetrician to be continually present if a TOLAC patient was admitted; 17 (12.2%) allowed personnel to be 15-30 minutes away. TOLAC eligibility criteria included one prior cesarean (32.4%), spontaneous labor (52.5%), continuous fetal monitoring and intravenous access (99.3%), and epidural analgesia (19.4%). The mean distance from a non-TOLAC to a TOLAC hospital was 37 mi. with 25% of non-TOLAC hospitals more than 51 mi. from the closest TOLAC hospital.

In 2012, 139 hospitals (57.2%) offered TOLAC, 16.6% fewer than in 2007. Since 2010, five hospitals started and four stopped offering TOLAC, a net gain of one hospital offering TOLAC with three more considering it. Only two hospitals cited change in ACOG guidelines as a reason for the change.

Conclusions

Despite the 2010 NIH and ACOG recommendations encouraging greater access to TOLAC, 44% of California hospitals do not allow TOLAC. Of the 56% allowing TOLAC, 10.8% report fewer than 3% VBAC births. Thus, national recommendations encouraging greater access to TOLAC had a minor effect in California.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Barger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr, Olshan AF: Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Eng Med 1996, 335(10):689-695.
• [2]Stalnaker BL, Maher JE, Kleinman GE, Macksey JM, Fishman LA, Bernard JM: Characteristics of successful claims for payment by the Florida Neurologic Injury Compensation Association Fund. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997, 177(2):268-271. discussion 271-263
• [3]Phelan JP: VBAC: time to reconsider? OBG Manage 1996, 8:62-68.
• [4]Flamm BL: Once a cesarean, always a controversy. Obstet Gynecol 1997, 90(2):312-315.
• [5]ACOG Practice Bulletin: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1998.
• [6]ACOG Practice Bulletin: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1999.
• [7]Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Michelle M, Osterman MJ, Wilson EC, Mathews TJ: Births: final data for 2010. Nat Vit Stat Report 2012, 61(1):1-100.
• [8]Cox KJ: Providers' perspectives on the vaginal birth after cesarean guidelines in Florida, United States: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011, 11:72. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, Fu R, Janik R, Nygren P, Eden KB, McDonagh M: Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010, 115(6):1267-1278.
• [10]Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, Janik R, Nygren P, Walker M, McDonagh M: Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2010, 191:1-397.
• [11]Bangdiwala SI, Brown SS, Cunningham FG, Dean TM, Frederiksen M, Hogue CJ, King TL, Lukacz ES, McCullough LB, Nicholson W: NIH Consensus Development Conference Draft Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2010, 27(3):1-42.
• [12]Minkoff H, Fridman D: The immediately available physician standard. Semin Perinatol 2010, 34(5):325-330.
• [13]ACOG Practice Committee: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery (Number 115). Obstet Gynecol 2010, 116(2 Pt 1):450-463.
• [14]Community Perinatal Network: Quality Improvement Data for California Perinatal Facilities and Regions. http://www.perinatalnetwork.org/ webcite
• [15]Coassolo KM, Stamilio DM, Pare E, Peipert JF, Stevens E, Nelson DB, Macones GA: Safety and efficacy of vaginal birth after cesarean attempts at or beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 106(4):700-706.
• [16]Grobman WA: Rates and prediction of successful vaginal birth after cesarean. Semin Perinatol 2010, 34(4):244-248.
• [17]Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, Moawad AH, Caritis SN, Harper M, Wapner RJ: Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Eng Med 2004, 351(25):2581-2589.
• [18]Macones GA, Peipert J, Nelson DB, Odibo A, Stevens EJ, Stamilio DM, Pare E, Elovitz M, Sciscione A, Sammel MD: Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 193(5):1656-1662.
• [19]State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development: Utilization rates for selected medical procedures in California. 2010. http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/PatDischargeData/ResearchReports/HospIPQualInd/Vol-Util_IndicatorsRpt/index.html webcite
• [20]Shihady IR, Broussard P, Bolton LB, Fink A, Fridman M, Fridman R, Aydin C, Korst LM, Gregory KD: Vaginal birth after cesarean: do California hospital policies follow national guidelines? J Reprod Med 2007, 52(5):349-358.
• [21]Center for Health Statistics: California Births. California Department of Public Health; 2010. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/StatewideBirthStatisticalDataTables.aspx webcite
• [22]Wells CE: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: views from the private practitioner. Semin Perinatol 2010, 34(5):345-350.
• [23]Charles S: The ethics of vaginal birth after cesarean. Hastings Cent Rep 2012, 42(4):24-27.
• [24]Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF: Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Semin Perinatol 2006, 30(5):235-241.
• [25]Zweifler J, Garza A, Hughes S, Stanich MA, Hierholzer A, Lau M: Vaginal birth after cesarean in California: before and after a change in guidelines. Ann Fam Med 2006, 4(3):228-234.
• [26]Menacker F, Hamilton BE: Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief 2010, 35:1-8.