Demonstration of the application of the global cesarean section rate model (C-Model) and the Robson Classification to estimate and characterize excess numbers of institutional c-sections
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.3649Abstract
Objective: To carry out an academic exercise based on real local data regarding the application of the C-Model v1.0 to determine how data are gathered and used to generate the model, how the model is applied in order to identify potential excess numbers of cesarean sections in an institution, and when identified, how the model is applied to distribute deliveries according to the Robson Classification system and explain excess numbers.
Methodology: The standardized ratio and absolute difference between the observed proportion and the expected probability of c-sections according to the C-Model v1.0 were estimated for each institution using real databases of five hospitals in Colombia. Convenience selection was used to meet the objectives. Based on the assumptions underpinning group distributions according to the Robson classification, proposed explanations for excess numbers and differences among institutions are presented.
Results: Applying the C-Model, the c-section standardized ratio identified different excess numbers of the procedure in the presence of similar institutional c-section proportions. Important variability was found in the proportion of c-sections among women with similar clinical and obstetric characteristics, which might explain the excess numbers identified.
Conclusion: The C-Model allows to estimate expected c-section proportions according to the specific characteristics of the women seen at each institution; their distribution according to the Robson Classification is a way to explore the origin and particulars of those differences.
References
Visser GHA, Ayres-de-Campos D, Barnea ER, de Bernis L, Di Renzo GC, Vidarte MFE, et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2018 392(10155):1286-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32113-5
Antoine C, Young BK. Cesarean section one hundred years 1920-2020: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. J Perinat Med. 2021;49(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2020-0305
Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Report (2010). Background Paper, 30. 2010. https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts.pdf
World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: WHO; 2015.
Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15553
Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7
Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE). Nacimientos 2019. 2021. https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/salud/nacimientos-y-defunciones/nacimientos/nacimientos-2019
Rubio-Romero JA, Fonseca-Pérez, Molina S, Enrique J, Buitrago Leal M, Zuleta-Tobon JJ, et al. Racionalización del uso de la cesárea en Colombia. Consenso de la Federación Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología (Fecolsog) y la Federación Colombiana de Perinatología (Fecopen). Bogotá, 2014. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 2014;65(2):139-51. https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.62
Watts G. Ana Pilar Betrán: seeking the optimum use of caesarean section. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32399-7
Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(2):297-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004
Souza J, Betran A, Dumont A, Mucio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux‐Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C‐Model): A multicountry cross‐sectional study. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(3):427-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13509
Moons KGM, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: What, why, and how? BMJ. 2009;338:b375. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b375
Higgins TL. Quantifying risk and benchmarking performance in the adult intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med. 2007; 22(3):141-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066607299520
World Health Organization. Robson Classification: Implementation: Manual. Geneva: WHO; 2017. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/
Clark DE, Hannan EL, Wu C. Predicting risk-adjusted mortality for trauma patients: Logistic versus multilevel logistic models. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(2):224-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.03.033
Rojas-Higuera R, Londoño-Cardona JG, Arango-Gómez F. Prácticas clínicas en el cuidado de gestantes y recién nacidos en algunos hospitales de Bogotá, Colombia. Rev Salud Pública. 2006;8(3):223-34. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0124-00642006000300008
Gómez-Dávila JG, Londoño-Cardona JG, de Monterrosa E. Frecuencia de uso de prácticas médicas basadas en la evidencia en el cuidado del parto en hospitales de la ciudad de Medellín. Años 2004 y 2005. Iatreia. 2006;19(1):5-13. https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/iatreia/article/view/4258/3833
Zuleta-Tobón JJ, Quintero-Rincón F, Quiceno-Ceballos AM. Aplicación del modelo de Robson para caracterizar la realización de cesáreas en una institución de tercer nivel de atención en Medellín, Colombia. Estudio de corte transversal. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 2013;64(2):90-9. https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.115
Pinto P, Crispín-Milart PH, Rojo E, Adiego B. Impact of clinical audits on cesarean section rate in a Spanish hospital: Analysis of 6 year data according to the Robson classification. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;254:308-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.09.017
Boatin AA, Cullinane F, Torloni MR, Betrán AP. Audit and feedback using the Robson classification to reduce caesarean section rates: A systematic review. BJOG. 2018;125(1):36-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14774
Cáceres IA, Arcaya M, Declercq E, Belanoff CM, Janakiraman V, Cohen B, et al. Hospital differences in cesarean deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004-2006: The case against case-mix artifact. Young RC, editor. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57817. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057817
Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff. 2013;32(3):527-35. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1030
Main EK, Chang S-C, Cheng YW, Rosenstein MG, Lagrew DC. Hospital-level variation in the frequency of cesarean delivery among nulliparous women who undergo labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(6):1179-89. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004139
Pasko DN, McGee P, Grobman WA, Bailit JL, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, et al. Variation in the nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(6):1039-48. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002636
Klein MC, Kaczorowski J, Hall WA, Fraser W, Liston RM, Eftekhary S, et al. The attitudes of canadian maternity care practitioners towards labour and birth: Many differences but important similarities. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2009;31(9):827-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34301-8
White VanGompel E, Main EK, Tancredi D, Melnikow J. Do provider birth attitudes influence cesarean delivery rate: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1756-7
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
