Health Service Focus

19.10.16

Caesarean rates don’t indicate quality of care and targets are dangerous

Pauline Hull from electivecesarean.com looks at whether the aim of reducing caesarean rates is improving outcomes. 

Caesareans save lives, but for several decades, NHS maternity policy has focused on reducing caesarean rates and increasing rates of ‘normal’ birth, without communicating evidence of improved outcomes for babies with intervention, fewer stillbirths and less pelvic floor injury for mothers. 

Warnings from charities, maternity care organisations and doctors, that imposing arbitrary caesarean rates is dangerous and costly, have been ignored, with NHS hospitals assessed, criticised and celebrated according to their annual number of surgeries; the flawed assumption being that a low percentage is commensurate with high-quality care and low cost. 

It took the Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation and Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board Supreme Court judgment in 2015 to finally challenge this status quo; criticising the “inappropriate pursuit of normal childbirth” and awarding £5.25m for the 1999 birth of a baby who ”would have been born uninjured” with a caesarean.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) press office has said Montgomery “will have a significant influence on obstetrics and gynaecology practice in the UK, with potential impacts on doctor-patient communications, information sharing and informed consent.” 

But nevertheless, and despite strong opposition, the latest NICE intrapartum care guidance still recommends: “Advise low risk nulliparous women that planning to give birth in a midwifery led unit…is particularly suitable for them… and the outcome for the baby is no different compared with an obstetric unit.” And RCOG still recommends: “One strategy for reducing the overall CS rate is the promotion of VBAC, where appropriate.” 

One other step in the right direction, given the obfuscation and under-reporting of many adverse outcomes, is RCOG’s decision to begin counting (some) babies’ deaths, but without retracting its 2012 recommendation for 20% caesarean rates, it’s failing to prevent more babies’ deaths too. 

Perhaps nowhere is this failing more evident than in the investigative reports published by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), an independent body charged with monitoring maternity providers, “to make sure they meet fundamental standards of quality and safety”. 

Specific data on hospitals’ rates of stillbirth, perinatal and neonatal mortality, intrapartum death and injury, maternal mortality and morbidity (including pelvic floor) are not reported, but caesarean versus ‘normal’ or vaginal birth rates are always cited, and presented as key performance indicators. 

A 2016 report of the Royal Berkshire Hospital, for example, found the trust “performed above or near their target of 60% for vaginal birth after caesarean”, yet six years earlier, £7.85m was awarded to a child injured during a VBAC (a £3.66m lump sum with index linked annual payments of £140,000, rising to £225,000 from 2019, for life). 

There is absolutely no consideration of the impact such targets might have on families’ lives or NHS litigation costs

Similarly, at North Middlesex University Hospital, baby Kristian died in 2015 after his mother’s caesarean request was denied, another baby died in 2009 after a planned caesarean for suspected macrosomia was cancelled, and another baby died in 2004 when a caesarean was not performed for breech presentation. These are cases that made it into the media. 

Yet under the heading ‘Patient outcomes’, a 2014 CQC Quality Report praised the trust because its “normal birth delivery rate was 65%, higher than the England average of 60.7%.” 

The CQC said, “This was positive given the high-risk population.”  One year later, baby Kristian died during a forced normal birth. 

Unsurprisingly, the trust’s website still boasts of a caesarean rate that’s “relatively low compared to other London maternity units”, and is still “Promoting normality”. 

Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHSFT website offers another example, boasting that “at King’s Mill Hospital, we are proud to have one of the highest percentages of normal births in the country, one of the lowest caesarean rates at just 18% and a home birth rate way above the national average.” 

A recent CQC report rated the hospital as “requiring improvement” on safety, effectiveness and responsiveness, with patients “not always protected from the risk of avoidable harm”, but on this key point, the CQC remained positive: “Caesarean section rates and natural birth rates were better than the national averages.” 

And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg… 

It is worth clarifying the definition of ‘normal’ birth here, given the pressure on hospitals to increase their rates – it is one without induction or epidural, and can include “antenatal, delivery or postnatal complications (including for example postpartum haemorrhage, perineal tear, repair of perineal trauma, admission to SCBU or NICU).” 

This is the pinnacle of care that hospitals are told to achieve. 

Worse still, recommendations published by the RCOG, RCM and NCT in 2012 impressed that it “is important to try to increase this rate as well as that of vaginal birth, which includes delivery by forceps and ventouse” – regardless of the damage forceps can do to babies and to women. 

Why? Because “Every potential caesarean section that is enabled to be a normal birth saves £1200 in tariff price alone.”  Except the cost of subsequent attempts to repair pelvic floor damage or to counsel women for birth trauma are not factored into this statement. 

As long as maternity care continues to focus more on the birth process than the birth outcome, all these anomalies will continue to occur, and the NHS litigation bill will continue to grow. 

Stillbirth rates remain high; and more parents are asking why. Forceps rates are increasing, silence of the pelvic floor taboo is breaking, and more women are asking why no one told them of the risks. 

Bad outcomes, not high caesarean rates, are what’s fuelling the ever-increasing NHS litigation bill, and the highest payouts of all are a direct result of failures to carry out timely caesareans. 

The NHS can’t afford the mistakes it’s already made, so why is it being told to make more of the same? 

Have you got a story to tell? Would you like to become an NHE columnist? If so, click here.

Comments

Birth Trauma Canada   19/10/2016 at 18:12

Ms. Hull is correct. The same 'Normal' birth policy in Canada is also responsible for so much maternal / neonatal morbidity and mortality over the decades at enormous cost to both mothers, their babies and health care systems. It is long past time that obstetrics gives full disclosure about the risks of planned vaginal births. Hopefully Montgomery v Lanarkshire is the impetus needed to make that happen.

Abby   19/10/2016 at 19:04

Uh yeah... time to step out of idealism and fantasy and into the reality of what these moms and babies go through, physically and psychologically.

Add your comment

 

national health executive tv

more videos >

latest healthcare news

Marx to lead gross negligence manslaughter review following Bawa-Garba case

23/02/2018Marx to lead gross negligence manslaughter review following Bawa-Garba case

Dame Clare Marx is to lead a review into how manslaughter by gross negligence is applied to medical practice, spanning every step of the process fr... more >
DHSC workforce consultation will inform joint health and care strategy due in summer

23/02/2018DHSC workforce consultation will inform joint health and care strategy due in summer

A consultation focusing on the adult social care workforce has been launched by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), in partnership wit... more >
Pressures ‘far from easing’ even as spring approaches

23/02/2018Pressures ‘far from easing’ even as spring approaches

Pressures on the NHS are intensifying despite the country now approaching the end of winter, NHS Providers has warned. The comments come in resp... more >

editor's comment

25/09/2017A hotbed of innovation

This edition of NHE comes hot on the heels of this year’s NHS Expo which, once again, proved to be a huge success at Manchester Central. A number of announcements were made during the event, with the health secretary naming the second wave of NHS digital pioneers, or ‘fast followers’, which follow the initial global digital e... read more >

last word

Hard to be optimistic

Hard to be optimistic

Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patients Association, warns that we must be realistic about the very real effects of continued underfunding across the health service. It’s now bey... more > more last word articles >
681 149x260 NHE Subscribe button

the scalpel's daily blog

Trusts recognise the value of the GIRFT programme – but it must remain ‘quality first’

09/02/2018Trusts recognise the value of the GIRFT programme – but it must remain ‘quality first’

Cassandra Cameron, policy advisor at NHS Providers, says trusts must be given constructive support – without fear of failure – in order for the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme to succeed. The NHS GIRFT programme aims for better value in acute hospital and mental health care by using trusts’ clinical, operational and financial data for benchmarking and scrutiny of local performance. Along with efficiency, ... more >
read more blog posts from 'the scalpel' >

comment

Celebrating 75 years of healthcare

14/02/2018Celebrating 75 years of healthcare

Julian Amey, chief executive of the Institute of Healthcare Engineering & Estate Management (IHEEM), outlines what the coming year holds for ... more >
The HSIB approach to maternity investigations

14/02/2018The HSIB approach to maternity investigations

Jane Rintoul, director of strategy and policy and programme director for maternity investigations at the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (... more >
Data saves lives

14/02/2018Data saves lives

Kuldeep Sohal, programme manager at Connected Yorkshire, part of Connected Health Cities, discusses how data sharing across the north is improvin... more >
Our work can help ease A&E pressures

09/02/2018Our work can help ease A&E pressures

Last year, NICE guidelines recommended that the NHS should provide more advanced paramedic practitioners (APPs) to relieve pressure on emergency ... more >
Beyond scented candles and quick fixes

07/02/2018Beyond scented candles and quick fixes

Joni Jabbal, researcher at The King’s Fund, asks why quality improvements and innovations are failing to be adopted by the NHS. There ... more >

interviews

Duncan Selbie: A step on the journey to population health

24/01/2018Duncan Selbie: A step on the journey to population health

The NHS plays a part in the country’s wellness – but it’s far from being all that matters. Duncan Selbie, chief executive of Pu... more >
Cutting through the fake news

22/11/2017Cutting through the fake news

In an era of so-called ‘fake news’ growing alongside a renewed focus on reducing stigma around mental health, Paul Farmer, chief exec... more >
Tackling infection prevention locally

04/10/2017Tackling infection prevention locally

Dr Emma Burnett, a lecturer and researcher in infection prevention at the University of Dundee’s School of Nursing and Midwifery and a boar... more >
Scan4Safety: benefits across the whole supply chain

02/10/2017Scan4Safety: benefits across the whole supply chain

NHE interviews Gillian Fox, head of eProcurement (Scan4Safety) programme at NHS Supply Chain. How has the Scan4Safety initiative evolved sin... more >
Simon Stevens: A hunger for innovation

25/09/2017Simon Stevens: A hunger for innovation

Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, knows that the health service is already a world leader when it comes to medical advances – ... more >