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

Mackey hails ‘tremendous’ effort as trusts slash £1bn off agency staff bill

01/03/2017Mackey hails ‘tremendous’ effort as trusts slash £1bn off agency staff bill

Major agency controls across the health service have so far succeeded in saving £1bn since they were introduced in October 2015, latest NHS... more >
Major NHS ambition to shift to community care ‘elusive’ without extra cash

01/03/2017Major NHS ambition to shift to community care ‘elusive’ without extra cash

A report released today by the Nuffield Trust has revealed that STPs are working towards “undeliverable expectations”, warning that S... more >
Murphy steps down as Patients Association CEO

01/03/2017Murphy steps down as Patients Association CEO

The CEO of the Patients Association (PA) Katherine Murphy, who wrote for the most recent issue of NHE, is set to relinquish her role after nine y... more >

editor's comment

07/02/2017Handling the pressure

Although NHS trusts have been feeling the pressure this winter, as demand on A&E services continues to rise and the financial challenge deepens, it is worth noting and applauding the professionalism, determination and resilience of the workforce in still delivering world-class healthcare.  However, as you’ll read throughout... read more >

last word

Lessons from Finland for NHS mental health

Lessons from Finland for NHS mental health

While many countries across Europe struggle to deal with a rising demand for mental health services, Finland is successfully improving service provision via a new online portal. Professor Grigori... more > more last word articles >
681 149x260 NHE Subscribe button

the scalpel's daily blog

Communication in the NHS: Who has control?

08/02/2017Communication in the NHS: Who has control?

On behalf of the Patients Association, Nic Hart has recently penned an open letter to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman in an attempt to keep pressing for answers around the 2012 death of his teenage daughter, Averil, whilst in the care of Cambridge and Peterborough NHS FT. Here, he writes about the importance of communication and co-ordination across a whole NHS care pathway in order to avoid similar tragedies. Averil wanted t... more >
read more blog posts from 'the scalpel' >

comment

Transforming community care

23/02/2017Transforming community care

Chris Gregory, head of clinical systems for LGSS Local Health and Care Shared Service — a public sector organisation providing back-office ... more >
Maximising the value of public engagement

20/02/2017Maximising the value of public engagement

Jane Mordue, the newly appointed permanent chair of Healthwatch England, explains why listening to feedback from the public is much more likely t... more >
Time to value ambulance staff

20/02/2017Time to value ambulance staff

Alan Lofthouse, Unison's national ambulance officer, discusses the need for policymakers to address the rising rate of ambulance staff leaving th... more >
Technology at the bedside: The benefits of mobile

20/02/2017Technology at the bedside: The benefits of mobile

Aaron Powell, chief digital officer at NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), explains why the organisation sees mobile very much as the future. ... more >
Time to act in the fight against AMR

20/02/2017Time to act in the fight against AMR

Katherine Murphy, chief executive at the Patients Association, calls on the government and the healthcare community to work together to combat th... more >

interviews

Improving the flow

13/02/2017Improving the flow

Glen Burley, chief executive of South Warwickshire NHS FT, explains how his organisation has been able to improve patient flow through its emerge... more >
Leadership development should be for all in health and care

07/12/2016Leadership development should be for all in health and care

Back in August, Stephen Hart joined Health Education England (HEE) as the organisation’s new director of leadership development, which incl... more >
The powerful link between staff and patient satisfaction

03/10/2016The powerful link between staff and patient satisfaction

David Behan CBE, chief executive of the Care Quality Commission (CQC), talks to NHE about the correlation between high rates of staff satisfactio... more >
Dame Fiona Caldicott: We’re not quite ready for sharing back-office function on data security

07/07/2016Dame Fiona Caldicott: We’re not quite ready for sharing back-office function on data security

NHE’s David Stevenson talks to Dame Fiona Caldicott following her much-awaited Review of Data Security, Consent and Opt-Outs. In the f... more >
Benchmarking what good looks like

01/07/2016Benchmarking what good looks like

Lord Carter of Coles discusses the findings of his recent review, the work of NHS Improvement (NHSI) and the importance of benchmarking. Dav... more >