Analysis of cesarean section rates in two German hospitals applying the 10-Group Classification System.
Adult
Benchmarking
Cesarean Section
/ standards
Clinical Audit
Female
Germany
Health Status Disparities
Healthcare Disparities
/ statistics & numerical data
Hospitals, District
/ standards
Hospitals, University
/ standards
Humans
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ standards
Pregnancy
Prospective Studies
Quality Indicators, Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
10-Group Classification System
Robson classification
TGCS
audit
cesarean section rates
cesarean section statistics
cesarean section trends
delivery
health care
quality indicators
Journal
Journal of perinatal medicine
ISSN: 1619-3997
Titre abrégé: J Perinat Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0361031
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Sep 2021
27 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
24
10
2020
accepted:
18
03
2021
pubmed:
8
4
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
entrez:
7
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In Germany, cesarean section (CS) rates more than doubled within the past two decades. For analysis, auditing and inter-hospital comparison, the 10-Group Classification System (TGCS) is recommended. We used the TGCS to analyze CS rates in two German hospitals of different levels of care. From October 2017 to September 2018, data were prospectively collected. Unit A is a level three university hospital, unit B a level one district hospital. The German birth registry was used for comparison with national data. We performed two-sample Z tests and bootstrapping to compare aggregated (unit A + B) with national data and unit A with unit B. In both datasets (national data and aggregated data unit A + B), Robson group (RG) 5 was the largest contributor to the overall CS rate. Compared to national data, group sizes in RG 1 and 3 were significantly smaller in the units under investigation, RG 8 and 10 significantly larger. Total CS rates between the two units differed (40.7 vs. 28.4%, p<0.001). The CS rate in RG 5 and RG 10 was different (p<0.01 for both). The most relative frequent RG in both units consisted of group 5, followed by group 10 and 2a. The analysis allowed us to explain different CS rates with differences in the study population and with differences in the clinical practice. These results serve as a starting point for audits, inter-hospital comparisons and for interventions aiming to reduce CS rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33827151
pii: jpm-2020-0505
doi: 10.1515/jpm-2020-0505
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
818-829Informations de copyright
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
Références
Statistisches, Bundesamt. Krankenhausentbindungen in Deutschland [Internet]. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Krankenhaeuser/Tabellen/krankenhausentbindungen-kaiserschnitt.html [Accessed 26 Sep 2020].
Betrán, AP, Ye, J, Moller, A-B, Zhang, J, Gülmezoglu, AM, Torloni, MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PloS One 2016;11:e0148343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343.
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;392:1341–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7.
Statistisches, Bundesamt. 30.5% der Krankenhausentbindungen per Kaiserschnitt im Jahr 2017 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/09/PD18_349_231.html [Accessed 21 Oct 2020].
Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7.
Betran, AP, Torloni, MR, Zhang, JJ, Gülmezoglu, AM. For the WHO Working Group on caesarean section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates: a commentary. BJOG 2015;123:667–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13526.
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. J Am Med Assoc 2015;314:2263–70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15553.
D’Alton, ME, Hehir, MP. Cesarean delivery rates: revisiting a 3-Decades-Old Dogma. J Am Med Assoc 2015;314:2238–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15948.
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;392:1286–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32113-5.
Lauer, JA, Betrán, AP, Merialdi, M, Wojdyla, D. Determinants of caesarean section rates in developed countries: supply, demand and opportunities for control: World Health ReportWorld Health Organization (2010) Background Paper, 29 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/29DeterminantsC-section.pdf [Accessed 21 Oct 2020].
Betrán, AP, Temmerman, M, Kingdon, C, Mohiddin, A, Opiyo, N, Torloni, MR, et al.. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet 2018;392:1358–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31927-5.
Robson, MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001;12:23–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0965539501000122.
Robson, MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15:179–94. https://doi.org/10.1053/beog.2000.0156.
Torloni, MR, Betran, AP, Souza, JP, Widmer, M, Allen, T, Gulmezoglu, M, et al.. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PloS One 2011;6:e14566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566.
Robson, M, Hartigan, L, Murphy, M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013;27:297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004.
World Health Organization. Robson classification: implementation manual [Internet]. World Health Organization. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/ [Accessed 21 Oct 2020].
McCarthy, FP, Rigg, L, Cady, L, Cullinane, F. A new way of looking at caesarean section births. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;47:316–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2007.00753.x.
Brennan, DJ, Robson, MS, Murphy, M, O’Herlihy, C. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:308.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.021.
Colais, P, Fantini, MP, Fusco, D, Carretta, E, Stivanello, E, Lenzi, J, et al.. Risk adjustment models for interhospital comparison of CS rates using Robson’s 10-Group Classification System and other socio-demographic and clinical variables. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012;12:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-12-54.
Vogel, JP, Betrán, AP, Vindevoghel, N, Souza, JP, Torloni, MR, Zhang, J, et al.. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Global Health 2015;3:e260–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X.
Yadav, S, Kaur, S, Yadav, S, Thakur, B. Analysis of caesarean rate, indications and complications: review from medical college Ambala, Haryana, India. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2016;5:3326–9. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20163282.
Ferreira, EC, Pacagnella, RC, Costa, ML, Cecatti, JG. The Robson 10-Group Classification System for appraising deliveries at a tertiary referral hospital in Brazil. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015;129:236–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.11.026.
Tapia, V, Betran, AP, Gonzales, GF. Caesarean section in Peru: analysis of trends using the Robson classification system. PloS One 2016;11:e0148138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148138.
Pyykönen, A, Gissler, M, Løkkegaard, E, Bergholt, T, Rasmussen, SC, Smárason, A, et al.. Cesarean section trends in the Nordic Countries – a comparative analysis with the Robson classification. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96:607–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13108.
Rossen, J, Lucovnik, M, Eggebø, TM, Tul, N, Murphy, M, Vistad, I, et al.. A method to assess obstetric outcomes using the 10-Group Classification System: a quantitative descriptive study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016192. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016192.
Tura, AK, Pijpers, O, de Man, M, Cleveringa, M, Koopmans, I, Gure, T, et al.. Analysis of caesarean sections using Robson 10-Group Classification System in a university hospital in eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020520. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020520.
Hehir, MP, Ananth, CV, Siddiq, Z, Flood, K, Friedman, AM, D’Alton, ME. Cesarean delivery in the United States 2005 through 2014: a population-based analysis using the Robson 10-Group Classification System. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219:105.e1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.012.
Begum, T, Nababan, H, Rahman, A, Islam, MR, Adams, A, Anwar, I. Monitoring caesarean births using the Robson 10-Group Classification System: a cross-sectional survey of private for-profit facilities in urban Bangladesh. PloS One 2019;14:e0220693. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220693.
Betrán, AP, Vindevoghel, N, Souza, JP, Gülmezoglu, AM, Torloni, MR. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PloS One 2014;9:e97769. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097769.
Louwen, F, Wagner, U, Abou-Dakn, M, Dötsch, J, Lawrenz, B, Ehm, D, et al.. Sectio caesarea [Internet]; 2020. Available from: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/015-084l_S3_Sectio-caesarea_2020-06_1_02.pdf.
IQTIG. QS-verfahren [Internet]. Available from: https://iqtig.org/downloads/auswertung/2017/16n1gebh/QSKH_16n1-GEBH_2017_BUAW_V02_2018-08-01.pdf [Accessed Oct 2020].
Bayrische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Qualitätssicherung in der stationären Versorgung. Geburtshilfe (16/1) – BAQ [Internet]. Available from: https://www.baq-bayern.de/media/file/1551.2018_161_BA_Gesamt.pdf [Accessed 21 Oct 2020].
Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 1979;6:65–70.
Davison, AC, Hinkley, DV. Bootstrap methods and their application. In: Cambridge series on statistical and probabilistic mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997, vol 1:582 p.
Robson, MS. The 10-Group Classification System-a new way of thinking. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.026.