Strategies to reduce the caesarean section rate in a private hospital and their impact.
caesarean delivery
healthcare quality improvement
obstetrics and gynecology
quality improvement methodologies
Journal
BMJ open quality
ISSN: 2399-6641
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open Qual
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101710381
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
07
10
2020
accepted:
03
08
2021
entrez:
13
8
2021
pubmed:
14
8
2021
medline:
30
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a concern around the world of an increasing caesarean section rate. It was estimated that between 2010 and 2015, caesarean section rates increased by almost 50%. There are several implications for this, considering that caesarean sections are associated with higher costs and worse clinical outcomes. In this context, several interventions have been considered to increase vaginal delivery rates, including the Adequate Childbirth Project (PPA) in Brazil. This study aimed to verify the impact of the strategies adopted internally in the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (HIAE) located in São Paulo, Brazil, regarding the reduction of caesarean sections and their perinatal results. Actions to support our study were implemented in two phases based on the PPA schedule. These actions involved three axes: a multidisciplinary team, pregnant women and facility improvements. All pregnant women admitted for childbirth at the HIAE between 2014 and 2019 were included in this study. The overall rate of vaginal delivery in this study population and among primiparous women and the percentage of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were analysed in three periods: before the implementation of PPA actions (period A), after the first phase of the project (period B) and after its second phase (period C). The results showed an increase in the average vaginal delivery rate from 23.57% in period A to 27.88% in period B, and to 30.06% in period C (AxB, p<0.001; BxC, p=0.004). There was a decrease in the average of NICU admissions over the periods (period A 19.22%, period B 18.71% and period C 13.22%); a significant reduction was observed when periods B and C (p<0.001) were compared.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34385187
pii: bmjoq-2020-001215
doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001215
pmc: PMC8362699
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;37(10):446-54
pubmed: 26465163
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1358-1368
pubmed: 30322586
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011 May;33(5):252-62
pubmed: 21860933
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Jun 1;20(1):335
pubmed: 32487165
BJOG. 2018 Jan;125(1):36-42
pubmed: 28602031
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;210(3):179-93
pubmed: 24565430
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):415-425
pubmed: 31923054
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Apr 26;21(1):333
pubmed: 33902486
Cad Saude Publica. 2014 Aug;30 Suppl 1:S1-12
pubmed: 25167181
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD005528
pubmed: 21678348
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Jun;30(6):444-456
pubmed: 32978322
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988 Oct;27(2):165-70
pubmed: 2903080
Rev Saude Publica. 2014 Apr;48(2):304-13
pubmed: 24897052
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1341-1348
pubmed: 30322584
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2014 Apr-Jun;28(2):108-16; quiz E1-2
pubmed: 24781769
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
BMJ Open Qual. 2020 May;9(2):
pubmed: 32381595
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 4;13(9):e0203274
pubmed: 30180198
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2018 Sep 07;42:e116
pubmed: 31093144
Rev Saude Publica. 2017;51:105
pubmed: 29166440
JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314(21):2263-70
pubmed: 26624825
Ceska Gynekol. 2016 Jan;81(1):54-7
pubmed: 26982066
Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1349-1357
pubmed: 30322585